i 


rote eee A eet anne Att oe ete Oe 
a a 
Ἐπ τς 
en τς 
en 
es a eT 
= nemeaoes omer 
pees . 
=a 
— — 
on — aeeereepaeae 
- cea ae mre ee ἐαραυοδυσνουπανουφούν rs 
= “1: πον oo terrane aoeemenatoaeS recen 
eee : τ ον ττττο ον σοτοῖν 
— — ; Seen at οτος 
maces ποσοῦ 
τοῖς sooeebetortons 
πα 
παν εν to αϑς τος 
area: Mme nbe 
- aR A teeth ans 
eam enn og teh > 
——— Rasamaanery arvees¢ 
xs ae mnt 
—— 
τ τ τανε τατον: 
Ὡ-- treet 
ye Nt πε τὸ eee te ον. 
τε ot ah teed rece e eee, 
eer 
προ τ τ τέκονοῖς 
"κε τ τσνόσσσντ 
πα κεν attra tee 
ere ens 
cavacmmonnsvctt ont. 
~ he ements 
ovornennait 
mesonors evan 
saee" anoeere 
mererioene 
melt 
~ampepoeny 
μουδυύνθουν, 
ponsnuennen 
cainehamann 
μων; ΣΝ 
= =r x > seasscre try 
: == peer 
ions ot ee gs 
matron 
eae sere 
Η eres Oe OM 
——— - ete ere te 
= Serrenseste 
suguessevecs 
coarensbeesiacace 
= wihaapss 
Ξ sees 
eterno tenet te 
= = = 
πποξ αν -.- i hee 
Ξ --- meer = eee ot pets tee 
- δι ---- ----“΄- ea ry Tee 
apennacene good We en ee — ω 
Se ——— 
ae corsigenagenes 
~ epee cog henner n - 
(a et me me — μα 
sotrustnapamninone = 
ote rsn : : 
τα οαρνοο ταν ττν αν ζααν μον ναι ran oe 
ys con. "ἢ “τ τον — ee 


" 
ta 
4 
ta 
4 


OF THE 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI 


A 


sent eee seneeeneeesacesesseems 


gee: 
eh) ἘΞ 
; ἘΝ | 2 


i 


a 
ails. 


th fundir 
ἘΠ 


-, 


5 
— 
ἘΞ 

oO 
Lee 
~~ 


| by 
7 wi 
deta 


ry 


ogi 


Mic 


in 
ive 


digitize α΄, 


D 
arch 


- 
- 


Hy 


ἘΣ oie ee 


ἐμάν τον εν: 
Ἔα ἢ 
See 


a Ε 
Σὰ 
SS ee 


—— i ee  ὐ πί 


HERE AND THERE IN THE 
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.... 


With an introduction on 


NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


BY 


Lemuel Stoughton Potwin, D.D. 


Professor in Adelbert College of Western Reserve University 


Chicago : New York : Toronto 


Fleming H. Revell Company 


1898 


\ VNIVERSITY 

be ON a | 

eal LIFORNIK 
one x 


oS 
— 


ν Pr ie ΚΣ 


2 
i 


~ sae 


Sib δὲν Rites rea a 


1 4 
[ . 


PREFACE 


Turis book is not a commentary, but offers itself as a 
supplement to the commentaries. Every student of the 
New Testament has general helps that shed an impartial, 
even if sometimes needless, light on every chapter. But 
in this age of books, when much of the reader’s time is 
taken up in selecting what to read, it is but fair that the 
exegetical writer should select beforehand, and offer only 
what seems to him not found already in the necessarily 
common material of complete works. If he thinks that 
he has gained new light on various passages, let him be 
content to tell what has come to him here and there. Let 
him resolutely refrain from making a commentary. 
Otherwise what is really new and good in his work will 
be overlaid and hidden, or at least crowded and cramped, 
by what may be good but cannot be new. I have tried, 
in this little volume, to follow the advice now given. 

A part of the book has been made by revising articles 
contributed to religious periodicals. Some of these arti- 
cles have been changed so much as to almost prevent rec- 
ognition; and I cannot suppose that my readers care 
enough for looking up my past work to wish for a full 
list of material previously published. I may say that 
No. I. is substantially from the Andover Review, that 
No. 11. is partly from The Journal of Biblical Literature. 


7 


8 PREFACE 


Not a few pages are taken, with changes, from the Bib- 
liotheca Sacra. 

In regard to the Introduction, I anticipate the criticism 
that it is not properly so called. If, however, it be found 
to have, as I hope it will, a value of its own, its lack of 
introductory and explanatory connection with what fol- 
lows, will pass without much objection. It is not a trea- 
tise, nor even an essay, but simply a series of somewhat 
disconnected practical hints. 

L. 5. P. 

Cleveland, O., June 1, 1897. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. : 
Hints on New Testament Exegesis - 
DISCUSSIONS. 
I, A Point of Grammar in “ Gloria in Excelsis ” 
II. ᾿Επιούσιοδ. Translated in the Lord’s Prayer 
“daily” - - - 
III. Does the Lord’s Prayer make mention of the 
Devil ? - - - 
IV. Does “Πλιχέα in Matthew and Luke Mean Stature 
or Age? - - - 
V. To the Sleeping oe atts - 
VI. Demons - - - 
VII. The New Testament use οὗ ἀγαπάω and φιλέῶ 
VIII. The Historical Present in the Four Gospels 
IX. Does the Preface to Luke’s Coney: belong 
also to the Acts? - - 
X. Christ’s Descent into Hades - 
XI. Appointed to Eternal Life - - 


XVIII. 


. Agrippa to Paul: Acts xxvi., 28 in he Light 


of Latin Idiom - 


- Reconciliation by Self-Revelation - 
- The Meaning of “ Foreknew”’ in Romans 


VIII., 29 as illustrated by John x., 27 


. Paul’s Anathema a ce 
XVI, 
XVII. 


Words Borrowed from the Latin - 


Words Borrowed from the Hebrew and 
Aramaic - - - 


Words not found in Classical Writers 


INDEXES.. 


General Index - - - 
Index of Greek Words - - 
Index of New Testament Texts - 


105 
111 
113 
115 
127 


130 
137 
145 


147 
152 


155 
159 
162 


182 
194 


203 
213 


216 


Here and There in the Greek 


New Testament 


INTRODUCTION 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


In thinking of the conditions of highest success in the 
exegesis of the New Testament, we naturally make three 
divisions: tst, The personal qualifications of the exegete ; 
2nd, The principles of exegesis; 3rd, The helpful methods. 
These divisions will often cross each other, and may lead 
to some repetition, though from different points of view. 


§ I- PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS. 


1. 1 mention first an open mind. This does not mean 
that one should be indifferent towards the topics of the 
New Testament, or without settled Christian opinions. 
Such a state of religious emptiness is exegetical paralysis. 
But the open mind implies such a quiet holding in abey- 
ance and balancing of personal opinions and habits, of 
traditional and current views, that one may come to the 
task of interpretation with something of the freshness 
that belongs to a new investigation. Such questions as, 
What doctrine does this passage support? What sort of 

II 


12 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


sermon will grow out of it? Is it in harmony with a 
certain other text? Is it quite worthy of the writer? 
must wait till the open-minded soul catches the simple 
meaning before it. There is also a natural open-minded- 
ness distinct from the impartiality of set purpose. The 
successful exegete is different from the successful writer, 
the latter being intensely executive, while the former is 
intensely and broadly receptive; open to every form of 
thinking, and every manifestation of character. There 
is in him acomplete, and minute, even though quiet, atten- 
tiveness. Every ripple in the stream of thought leaves 
its mark. This openness extends also to the tone and 
spirit, as well as to the intellectual contents of a passage. 
The open mind, in its most active state, is kindled by a 
passion for the truth. 

2. A mind sensitive to language. This means more 
than the ability to understand the main drift of language, 
and analyze its phrases. A sensitive mind appreciates 
shades of meaning, and takes impressions which it may 
not be able logically to explain. With photographic con- 
formity it catches the moods of writers,and feels the power 
of theirstyle. This delicate language-sense may be illus- 
trated by the sense of hearing. A dull ear can hear 
shouts and rumblings and martial music. It is correct so 
far as it goes; but it cannot hear whispers, and soft, sweet 
tones, and gliding musical transitions. Sensitiveness to 
language may be the gift of genius, or the fruit of long 
reading and literary study, and the exercise of literary 
taste. This faculty is imperative in conjectural textual 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 13 


criticism, but is also needed in ordinary exegesis. 
The absence of it is seen in mechanical explanations, 
in servile subjection to grammars and to the statistics of 
word-counting. 

3. Sympathy with the writer. The New Testament 
was written with a religious intent. To understand it 
fully we must have a religious spirit. We go with the 
writer and put ourselves in his place. This is not in 
conflict with the open mind, for with open mind we get 
as near as possible to the writer in order to catch his 
thought and feeling, which together make his meaning. 
It is plain that an irreligious and unchristian person 
could never have wrztten a truthful life of Christ. See 
the account of Christianity in the Annals of Tacitus 
(XV.,44)and the Letters of Pliny (X.,96). The same cold- 
ness or antipathy would warp the mind of a reader. In- 
deed it is a literary axiom that a writer, to be appreciated, 
must have a large measure of sympathy. “Not to sym- 
pathize is not to understand.” This need of religious 
sympathy is emphasized by the inspiration of the writers. 
The reader needs the same Spirit. Further, as the New 
Testament has several authors, this sympathy must be 
individualized. The matter-of-fact Mark, the mystical 
John, the warm-hearted Peter, and the profound enthu- 
siast, Paul, cannot be read well, all with the same feel- 
ing. The ideal exegete will enter into the mental states, 
and even the moods of each one. Here is the dramatic in- 
terest of New Testament exposition. All this is applica- 
ble, of course, to the speeches as well as writings in the 


14 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


New Testament. And when we think of the sayings of 
Him whose pen wrote not a word of the Bible, we see 
that close communion with Christ is needed for the best 
understanding of his words. ‘The interpreter must have 
spiritual insight. 

4. Genuine interest in ancient and oriental life. The 
- best interpreter will not have to force. himself into the 
environment of earliest Christian writing. He enjoys 
standing in the midst of the life of Palestine, marking 
the hills and brooks, the sea and river, the flat-roofed 
houses, the grass in the ovens, the women at the hand- 
mill, all the out-door living. He enjoys the reproduction 
of the in-door life of the family, and the inner life of the 
soul in thought, opinion, education, worship. He en- 
joys going beyond the oriental, and taking in the philoso- 
phy of the West, and the early contact of Christianity 
with Greek and Roman life and society. By this glad 
living in the past he can help himself to think the thoughts 
of the New Testament writers, look with their eyes, and 
feel with their hearts. 

5- A faculty for history. New Testament truth rests 
on ἃ historical foundation. Even the book of Revelation 
has an historical starting-point, and seems like veiled 
history all the way through. The history found in the 
other books is fragmentary. The ideal interpreter is a 
restorer; fitting the fragments to each other, and supply- 
ing the gaps from outside history, or intrinsic probability, 
as best he may. And when he cannot do these things, he 
knows it. 


a Nall 


Eee ΡΤ ΟΡ 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 15 


6. <A logical power that is flexible and adaptive. If 
the New Testament were a collection of orations, like 
those of Demosthenes, or a continuous treatise, there 
would be full scope for formal logic and rhetoric. As it 
is, there is, perhaps, equal, but different, need of logic. 
The book to be expounded is made up largely of familiar 
conversations, off-hand speeches, and letters. The course 
of thought is often abruptly broken; diverse topics are 
packed together; the feelings press hard on the intellect; 
the graces of style are unknown or ignored. The well- 
trained logician finds the logic elusive, but it is there; 
only it requires mental nimbleness to follow and seize it. 
Rigidity will fail. There is danger, on the other hand, 
that different subjects that are brought together simply 
by rapid speech, or condensed report, be forced into an 
artificial logical connection. 

7. A knowledge of human nature and quick percep- 
tion of its springs of action. A mere book-worm cannot 
be a good expositor, because the New Testament is full of 
human life. Characters must be understood in order to 
understand their language. The ancients are not statues 
in a gallery of art. We see them, real and living, in our- 
selves and our neighbors. Yet our knowledge of human 
nature must be broad, so that we shall not attribute nine- 
teenth century manners to the men and women of the 
Bible. This is about the same as to say that the exegete 
must have common sense. 

8. Passing from qualities to acquisitions, and assum- 
ing a liberal training and a working knowledge of Ger- 


16 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


man and French, I mention first a wide knowledge of 
literature. This knowledge must not be confined to one 
or two languages, or one period. It must include differ- 
ent kinds of literature, not excepting the dramatic; also 
the productions of various types of mind, the less culti- 
vated as well as the most highly cultivated. The early 
periods should be familiar, as exhibiting the most origi- 
nal and racy writing, the later periods as illustrating lit- 
erary dependence, as well as careful polish and willful 
affectation. By this wide reach of experience the exegete 
is kept out of the rut of current expression in his own 
tongue, and is led to facility of translation and of catching 
meanings without translation. He is at home in literature 
in general. I speak now of literary, rather than philo- 
logical knowledge. 

9. A good knowledge of the Greek classics. The 
New Testament Greek, be it ever so familiar, is too nar. 
row a basis for its own study. Its sources are in the 
earlier literature. Its etymologies go back to this. Al- 
though there are nearly 900 words, or about one-sixth of 
all in the New Testament, that may be called late Greek, 
i. e., later than Aristotle, yet these are nearly all from 
roots found in the classics. Of words not borrowed from 
Hebrew (about sixty), and Latin (about thirty), only six 
or seven are not from classical roots. Now there is needed 
for a true familiarity with New Testament Greek, asense 
of past usage, because the past usage, though modified, 
still lives. Also in language-exposition so much depends 
on suggestion and impression, that the student cannot 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 17 


afford to be without the hints and suggestions that come 
from the history, the changes, and the possibilities of his 
principal words. He must be at home inall Greek, espe- 
cially the Greek that lies back of his New Testament. 
He must have a Greek feeling and taste, and to this end 
must know a much larger body of writing than is found 
in the Testament—and writing of a different character. 
An early and thorough philological study of select por- 
tions of the classics is to be taken for granted. We cannot 
know Greek just as Luke and Paul did, but our classical 
knowledge helps us to come as near as we may, by a 
different path, to what was to them native speech. They 
could not have philology, and did not need it. We can 
have it, and do need it. Thereis a green, crude philology 
that is out of place in Bible study, but the ripe fruits of 
mature philological habits are invaluable. It is only be- 
lated philology that is untimely and useless. 

Io. Some knowledge of post-classical Greek, outside 
of the New Testament. While the classical Greek is in- 
dispensable,the post-classical has this peculiar advantage, 
that it includes the writers contemporary with the New 
Testament authors, and thus enlarges the scope of illus- 
trative usage. Beginning with B.C. 322, the year of the 
death of Aristotle, we have, before Christ: 

(1) The historian Polybius (B.C. 204-122). Though 
so much earlier than the New Testament, he uses more 
than 100 of its late Greek words, including a very few 
borrowed from the Latin (μιλέον, χεντυρίων). 


18 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


(2) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, historian and critic, 
who flourished 30 B. C. 

(3) Diodorus Siculus, the historian who wrote 8 B.C. 

After Christ we have: 

(1) Plutarch, who wrote about A. D. 80. His “ Lives” 
and his “ Moralia,” on account of their topics, illustrate 
the language of both the historical and didactic portions 
of the New Testament,and seem to stand nearer to it than 
the writings of any other secular writer. He uses about 
twice as many of the late New Testament words as 
Polybius. 

(2) The “Thoughts” of the Emperor M. Aurelius 
Antoninus (A. D. 86-161) by their moral discussions are 
brought into close relation of verbal usage with the New 
Testament. 

(3) The same may be said of the discourses of the 
Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, reported by his pupil Arrian. 
He taught about A. D. 90, in Nicopolis of Epirus. 

11. Of post-classical, extra-Biblical authors there are 
two that have special claims. They were both of them 
Jews by race and religion, and contemporaries of the 
apostles. One of them, Philo of Alexandria, wrote about 
A. D. 40. He was the leader of the allegorical interpre- 
tation of the Old Testament—a method which was carried 
into the Christian church. Though a poor interpreter, 
he was a deep thinker, and devoted his life to the attempt 
to harmonize Jewish religion and Greek philosophy. His 
language, therefore, is often parallel with that of the New 
Testament, and sometimes bridges over the space between 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 19 


the Septuagint andthe New Testament. His works may 
almost be said to have been Christianized by the profound 
study of Christian scholars, through whose labors a 
second-hand Philo has become the common property of 
Christian students. The chief example of Philo’s con- 
tribution to New Testament study is his use of λόγος. 

The other Jew whose Greek illustrates the faith that 
he did not himself adopt, is the historian Josephus. He 
was born at Jerusalem A. D. 37 and died in Rome, where 
he lived and wrote after the destruction of his native city. 
Both Philo and Josephus made great use of the Septua- 
gint, and thus are brought near to the evangelists and 
apostles, besides being their contemporaries. 

12. It is too much to assume that all the body of Greek 
writing now referred to, from Homer to Plutarch, is so 
familiar as to be easy reading at sight. It must, how- 
ever, be assumed as a condition of highest exegetical suc- 
cess that the Greek Testament itself is read with some- 
thing of the ease with which we read a book in English. 
Does this suppose the work of exegesis to be already 
complete? By no means. It is ready to begin. When 
we hear a public speaker, we first understand what he 
says, and then, if necessary, ask him to explain what he 
means. Bishop Butler, and John Stuart Mill, Shake- 
speare, Milton and Lowell, and a host of other English 
writers require a reading knowledge of their language as 
a preparation for understanding even their difficulties. So 
a free reading knowledge of New Testament Greek is 
preliminary to_exegesis. We must remove, as fully as 


20 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


possible, the embarrassment of a foreign tongue. For 
example, it is no exegesis of Phil. ii. 6-8 to translate the 
passage in the ordinary meanings of the words. This is 
merely preliminary; and if one has to dig out half the 
words from the Lexicon, instead of recognizing them as 
already familiar, and being open at once to their sugges- 
tions, it is hardly preliminary—-it is elementary. There 
can be a good exegesis from a good translation, for the 
right intellectual and spiritual force can work at second 
hand, but if the exegesis is to be worth anything as com- 
ing from Greek, it must come from a Greek that is familiar. 

13. A good knowledge of the Septuagint. In itself 
this Old Testament version has points of interest. It is 
unique in ancient Greek literature as being a translation. 
It abounds in new words, about one-seventh of its entire 
vocabulary being not found earlier. It abounds in Hebrew 
idioms, yet it is genuine Greek. There are marked in- 
stances of deviation from Hebrew idiom, and evidences 
of the moulding power of the Greek sense of beauty. Its 
relation to the New Testament gives it a value belonging 
to no other Greek book. (1) It greatly enlarges verbal 
usage for New Testament work. E. g. dvdpilw, ἐπίσχοπος, 
ἐχχλησία, Autpdw, and even ζηλωτής. (2) It, in fact, cre- 
ated important parts of the New Testament vocabulary. 
E. g. ἀγάπη, ἄγγελος, διάβολος, and χύριος for Jehovah. (3) 
It expanded and deepened the meaning of many old 
words, and prepared them for New Testament service. 
E. g. εἰρήνη, χάρις, πίστις, ζωή, ἅγιος, ἁμαρτωλός, λόγος. 
One-quarter of the New Testament vocabulary is absent 


oS ea eS te 


Pa ee he 


a ἘΨΙ Ο- 


i 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 21 


from the Septuagint, and yet all the most important ethi- 
cal and religious words are found in both. 

14. A knowledge of Hebrew. The value of this re- 
quires no argument. It helps the New Testament student 
both directly and indirectly—directly by explaining the 
Hebraisms, e. g. 6 χριτὴς τῆς ἀδιχίας (Luke XVili. 6), TPOTHS 
ἀποσχίασμα (Jas. i. 17), τέχνα φωτός (Eph. v. 9); indirectly 
by fixing the meaning of the words of the Septu- 
agint. The New Testament is, at various points, an- 
chored to the Septuagint, and the Septuagint to the He- 
brew, by its being atranslation. Still further, that more 
indefinite but decisive influence of the Old Testament on 
the New which lies in the spirit and tone of the former, 
is made more clear and helpful by reading the Old Testa- 
ment in its own tongue. 

15. Some knowledge of Syriac. The peculiar value 
of this comes from the fact that the common speech of 
Palestine in the time of Christ was Aramaic, or ancient 
Jewish Syriac, akin to the Hebrew, but not Hebrew, 
though sometimes so called. Greek and Aramaic were 
used side by side, both in speaking and writing. There 
is some reason to think that there was once an Aramaic 
Gospel, now lost. The Old Syriac version of the Gospels, 
a manuscript of which was discovered in the convent of 
St. Katharine, Mt. Sinai, in 1892, was made not far from 
A.D. 150, and if earlier than the Old Latin, as is probable, 
is the earliest known version. It was made while Greek 
and Aramaic were both spoken in Palestine, and would 
naturally embody some Aramaic traditional meanings and 


ν 


22 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


verbal suggestions of peculiar force. A half-century 
later we find a version of the whole New Testament, called 
the Peshitto, the authorized version of the early Syrian 
churches. Still further, about the same time, i. e., in the 
third century A. D., was made a version of the entire Old 
Testament, and made from the Hebrew. We have there- 
fore a fruitful field of collateral study, recommended by 
its early place, its close connection with the vernacular of 
. Palestine, and its extent over both Testaments. 

16. Familiarity with the Latin versions. Foremost 
is the Old Latin, or the collection of Old Latin versions, 
dated in the second century A. D., which were revised 
by Jerome in the fourth century into the present Vulgate 
of the Roman Catholic church. The value of all very 
early versions is twofold, (1) in being made while the 
original language was vernacular, (2) in being open to 
the influence of tradition. 

17. Some acquaintance with extra-canonical Chris 
tian and Jewish writings near New Testament times. 
These throw a side-light on both the language and thought 
of the earliest Christian writers. One of the latest-dis- 
covered examples is the “ Book of the Secrets of Enoch” 
(Oxford, 1896). In the same class are the various “ Apoc- 
alypses” and the “ Didache” and the long known Epistle 
of Barnabas. 

18. Some acquaintance with the early Greek Fathers. 
Their writings are not authoritative; Greek usage had 
changed somewhat when they wrote; their opinions 
colored their interpretations; but Greek was their native 


τ ee ia. eS ἸὝΝο- 
ν᾿ " » 
‘ 


==". CO 
e es Ὶ 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 23 


tongue, and, as we who speak the English of to-day ought 
to understand older English better than foreigners, so 
ought the Greek Fathers to know older Greek better than 
we. We may learn something even from the changes in 
their Greek. It is well to look down, as well as up, the 
stream of usage and idiom. Of the Greek Fathers the 
most helpful, no doubt, is Origen, of the third century, 
but we need not despise those earlier; as Clement of Rome 


‘and Clement of Alexandria, and even the anonymous Cle- 


mentine Homilies, falsely ascribed to the former. 

19. A knowledge of the principles of textual criti- 
cism. It is not necessary that the exegete should be an 
expert in questions of text. The Text of Tischendorf, 
or of Westcott and Hort, may be taken as correct, and in 
case of difference an ordinary scholar can hardly hope to 
remove the doubt, and may safely follow either author- 
ity, but neither blindly. Clear-sightedness is needed in 
every direction. An intelligent following of the textual 
critic’s discussions may lead to the true interpretation ; for 
questions of interpretation are used by him in determining 
the text. See, for example, Westcott and Hort’s discus- 
sion of Luke ii. 14 (N.T. II. App. p. 32 f.) It is not 
the exegesis of the critic alone that comes in, but that of 
the early readers, quoters and transcribers. In purely 
conjectural emendation, if a reverent prejudice ever sees 
fit to allow it, the exegete will have at least equal rights 
and responsibilities with the textual critic. 

20. Familiarity with the Higher, or analytic, Criti 
cism. The value of this Criticism to the interpreter does 


24 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


not depend on the acceptance of its provisional results, 
so far as composite authorship is concerned, but on the 
minuteness and thoroughness of its investigations; his- 
torical, literary, philological and theological. When 
Matthew Arnold says that the Gospel of John contains 
partly the words of Jesus, and partly the words of an 
unknown “theological lecturer,” we may welcome his 
discrimination and insight,—and draw our own con- 
clusions. The same may be said of a much more careful 
and profound thinker, Dr. Wendt, author of “The Teach- 
ing of Jesus.” The Old Testament has been the greatest 
field, thus far, for this Criticism, but the Acts has at- 
tracted the genius of Spitta (“ Apostelgeschichte, ihre 
Quellen”), and Revelation Vischer and others. The dif- 
ferences and disconnections that may seem to one critic 
the proof of different authors, may seem to another the 
work of one author at different periods of life or develop- 
ment, or in different circumstances, or under different in- 
spiration, or in different moods, or in possession of new 
material; but the differences themselves, whatever be their 
value to the literary dissector, are greatly important to 
the interpreter. In every real difference he finds a new 
point of light. 

21. Must, then, one be a Meyer, or a Lightfoot, be- 
fore he attempt to explain a book that, without explana- 
tion, is already plain enough to bring joy and salvation 
to the humblest mind? I[hope that this Introduction will 
not be thought to answer in the affirmative. Great genius, 
or deep spiritual insight, or the acuteness of common 


Or - Fa 


— —-_— =e Δ. ὌΨΙΝ ΤΥ ΥΥ 


¥ 


a ae ial ll ie i a el 


- HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 25 


sense may bea substitute for many scholarly qualifica- 
tions. But it is well to have an ideal. ΑἹ] that has now 
been mentioned is contributory to the best exegesis. The 
best exegete will cultivate these qualifications, not to men- 
tion others, if he has them, and the best students of the 
New Testament, in seeking help, will follow such an ex- 
egete if they can find him. , 


§ 2. PRINCIPLES. 


1. The New Testament is /terature, in the widest 
sense; is bound by its laws, and entitled to all its liberties. 
It is not literature in the narrower sense of being written 
for the ends of literary art. It is not a law-book, nor col- 
lection of technical rules. It is not an ecclesiastical book, 
for ceremonial use. It is a book for general reading, and 
written for a practical religious purpose. It is, therefore, 
to be interpreted on common-sense literary principles. 
While it is above other books, it is yet one among books— 
above them in scope, but like them in structure. The fact 
that it is a special organ of Divine revelation does not 
prevent its being a thoroughly human book. Questions 
of logic, style, origin of expressions, authorities for facts, 
stimulus to composition, evidence of revision, and all 
other literary, critical, and philological questions are as 
legitimate as in a book not illuminated by Divine light. 

2. It is a book of the times and for the times. The 
times leave their mark on the mental habits, knowledge, 
tastes, and language of the writer, and on his views of 
life. Not only his single words, but his phrases and 


26 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


whole conceptions are to be interpreted in the light 
of his training and surroundings. This does not mean 
that he cannot be in advance of his times, but that his 
writing must grow out of the times, however far they 
may reach above and beyond them. 

3. Every New Testament writer, in every sentence 
that he wrote, had a meaning. We may not be able to 
find the meaning of every passage, but, if the text be 
genuine, the meaning is certainly there. This principle 
works in two opposite ways. It leads to the correction 
of the text, if correction is needed, for the text is not 
genuine if ithas no meaning. On the other hand, it leads 
to earnest and manifold efforts to discover the meaning of 
the text as it stands. 

4. The meaning is not always clear in details, even to 
the writer, not logically sharply defined. E. g. the ex- 
pression, to be “in Christ,” was probably as incapable of 
explicit definition to the writer as to many subsequent 
readers. So where feeling is chiefly concerned, the in- 
tellectual framework of the passage may be very indefi- 
nite. It requires exegetical wisdom to stop where the 
writer stops, and suppress the inclination to define and 
develop his thought. 

5. We must not suppose that the writer is absorbed in 
words, and that if he changes his words he necessarily 
means something different. The adoption of certain 
words in earnest thought and rapid writing or speech, de- 
pends on causes too subtle to allow of mechanical classi- 
fication long after the writing is done. A glance of the 


ΠΥ ΠΡΟ Ὁ ὙὉὉΨΟΣΌΘΌΥ 
ae 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 27 


eye on some word already written, the recollection of 
some word used in similar connection, the flow of the 
sentence, or ease of pronunciation, and innumerable other 
slight influences may bring a word to the tongue or pen. 
This is true of all times and grades of literary production, 
but is especially true of New Testament language, which 
is characterized by simplicity, and lacks the intense word- 
consciousness of modern literature, and of the most culti- 
vated ancient literature. 

6. The Holy Spirit inspired and guided the writers, 
but did not destroy nor veil their personal peculiarities; 
nor was it necessary that He should remove their personal 
ignorance, especially if it was shared by their immediate 
readers. 

7. Exegesis is not philological analysis, or develop- 
ment. Greek etymology is a fascinating study, and is 
sometimes directly, perhaps always indirectly, helpful to 
exegesis. It may, also, be harmful by leading the mind 
away from simple usage and practical first impressions. 
ΕΣ, g. ovvetdnots can be understood to mean “ conscience” 
without answering the several questions about how its 
etymology leads to that meaning; χόσμος in its prevailing 
use in the New Testament has slight dependence on the 
use in Homer. 

8. Exegesis is not philosophical development. It may 
lead to the deepest problems of philosophy, as in the doc- 
trines of Creation, Providence,and Regeneration, and in 
the narratives of miracles and Christian experience; it 
may be philosophical where the writing which it inter- 


28 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


prets is such; it is greatly assisted by sound philosophy, 
but in itself it is quite distinct from the philosophical de- 
velopment of the text. 

9. Exegesis is not even the same as the logical deyel- 
opment of its text. We may infer much and well from a 
particular truth, e. g. from the certainty of death, but such 
inferences, however true and useful, are not exegesis. . 

10. Exegesis, or the bringing out of the meaning, is 
the re-statement of a writer’s meaning in language that 
may be clearer than his own, especially to readers of our 
time. It isa sort of translation; not a revision; above 
all, not an eradication of that all-pervading element which 
we call, by a name unknown to the New Testament, the 
supernatural. 

11. Exegesis is either primary or secondary. The 
former asks: What does the author mean in the exact 
form of his thought, as conditioned by his knowledge, 
mental state, language, times and circumstances? The 
latter asks: What does he mean as translated into modern 
forms of thought, and what is the foundation-meaning, 
more general and lying deeper than the primary meaning? 
The primary is exegesis proper; the secondary is often 
of more present practical value. The latter must wholly 
conform to the former, though it goes deeper. It-is not 
amere inference from the former, but is the essence of 
it. The primary is not simply the literal as distinguished 
from the figurative; it is the immediate and obvious, as 
distinguished from the reflective and remote. Primary 
exegesis emphasizes the historical, temporary and local; 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 29 


secondary the general, permanent and universal. E. g., 
when Paul writes, “Let the women keep silence in the 
churches” (1 Cor. xiv. 34), primary exegesis has little 
to do except to show the meaning of the word “ churches,” 
but the secondary looks for the foundation-meaning in 
the modest deportment of Christian women in every age 
and every land. The distinction must be guarded from 
abuse, lest the secondary subvert the primary. 

12. The meaning of a passage is not to be limited to 
the understanding of those immediately addressed. The 
meaning may be intentionally veiled, as when Jesus said, 
“ Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” 
or it may be beyond the capacity of the hearers, as when 
Jesus foretold to his disciples his death and resurrection. 

13. Language admits of an expansion of meaning to 
correspond to the progress of events. Thus the expres- 
sion United States of America in 1789 meant the thirteen 
States on the Atlantic seaboard, but in 1897 the same ex- 
pression means the forty-five States stretching across the 
continent. So in the New Testament “all the world” 
when the enrollment was described meant the Roman 
Empire, but in the command “Go ye into all the world” 
the phrase looks into the future and covers the world that 
is there found. 

14. Meaning is made up of both thought and feeling. 
A man means not only what he says, but what he feels, 
and tries almost in vain to say. If a passage culminates 
in feeling, it cannot be understood by a cold analysis of 
its logic. E. g. Rom. ix. 3, “ I could wish that I myself 


20 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


were accursed from Christ,” is to be taken literally, but 
not coolly. Its literal thought is almost consumed by the 
fire of its feeling. 

15. The general drift of a passage is the supreme 
authority for meaning. Words, phrases, and clauses are 
organized under leading thoughts and words. Words 
are not inflexible and independent, like blocks of wood 
or stone. They are more like the buds and leaves and 
blossoms of atree. A word standing by itself is but a 
fragment of meaning. It needs its phrase and sentence 
that it may enter into the general aim of the writing, and 
thus be more truly itself, in being part of one whole. A 
very simple illustration of this principle is found in the 
words of our Savior, “The good man out of his good 
treasure bringeth forth good things; and the evil man 
out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (Matt. 
xii. 35), where the context demands that by “ good things” 
and “evil things” we understand good and evil words. 
The principle applies closely to πᾶς and πάντες. 

16. Parallel usage is either (a) imperative or permis- 
sive and alternative, according as it is uniform or vary- 
ing, fixed or growing. (b) It applies to single words or 
to phrases, as “Son of man,” “Son of God,” or to whole 
sentences, as, “ He that hath ears to hear let him hear.” 
(c) It is traditional or original, according as its material 
has come down from the past, or is coined by the writer. 
(d) It is topical or universal, i. e., confined to certain 
lines of thought, or unlimited. (e) It is literal or figura- 
tive, and in comparison of passages careful discrimina- 


oe eee se ΒΨ. een ee ee 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS ie 


tion should be made between them. (f) It covers differ- 
ent parts of speech. A verb or adjective may be parallel 
with a noun. Thus λογομαχέω is to be compared with 
hoyowayta, both words being probably coined by Paul. 
(5) Usage admits of various shades of meaning without 
destroying the helpfulness of the parallel. (h) It may 
be confined to one author, or be common to the majority 
of writers on the same, or kindred, subject. 

17. Usage varies in value according to time. Other 
things being equal, first in value, outside of the writer’s 
own pages, is contemporary usage. Second is anterior 
usage, as being the cause of current use. Third is subse- 
quent usage, as being the outgrowth of earlier use. First 
of all is, of course, the writer’s own usage, if it is suf- 
ficiently extensive. But this may vary according to his 
topic, his state of mind, his various surroundings. 

18. Words used but once by an author, and not found 
in contemporary or anterior use, must have their meaning 
settled either by etymology, or by probable origin apart 
from etymology, or by the demands of the immediate 
context, or by comparisons with similar general thoughts, 
or by the probable origin of the general thought, or by 
the subsequent development of the word, or by the earli- 
est versions, or by- all these combined. The word 
ἐπιούσιος in the Lord’s Prayer is a striking example of 
the difficulty that may attend such a word. 

19. Exegesis must not confine itself to the details and 
minutiz of expression. It must go beyond words, 
phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, and consider the 


22 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


whole work, discovering, if possible, the bearing of each 
part on the design of the whole. It must respect the 
unity of the work. 

20. It must not be forgotten that the one aim of in- 
terpretation is to exhibit the power of a writing. It is 
significant that the meaning of a word is often called its 
force, according to the Latin phrase vis verborum. To 
say in other language what an author has said in his own 
is vain, or worse, unless by removing doubt or giving a 
new point of view, we reveal the power of what is writ- 
ten. 

21. Microscopic exactness does not always discover 
the power of a passage. E. g., it has been pointed out 
with great care that the word χόσμος in John i. 10 is 
used in three different senses. So saith the exegetical 
microscope; but we must forget this, and turn away from 
it, in order to see the power of the passage, for the one 
word for “world” is identified throughout. 

22. First impressions are of great value, because 
they represent the natural effect of the language on the 
original hearer; and much of the New Testament is either 
the record of words sfoken, or epistles designed to be 
read aloud to the assembled Christians. Of course a 
modern interpreter, familiar with the Bible from child- 
hood, cannot hope for absolutely first impressions. He 
can, however, get fresh impressions,as travelers can gain 
new views of old landscapes, and can mark the first im- 
pressions that he receives on taking up a passage after an 
interval, and after unconscious preparatory experience. 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 33 


For these impressions, to be worth the most, must be ona 
mind prepared for them. If they are sought from the 
Greek, the reader must beforehand know Greek well 
enough to get first impressions intelligently from a cur- 
sory reading. 

23. When a writer does not measure his words, his 
reader should not. There is such a thing as an overflow 
of passionate utterance that ought not to be termed exag- 
geration. Itis the natural way of expressing intense 
feeling. E. g. Rom. ix. 3, already quoted. We may 
compare the exclamation of our Savior on the cross in 
citing Ps. xxii. I. 

24. The principle of consistency must have a liberal ap- 
plication in exegesis. As between different writers, the 
unity of the New Testament does not require that all 
should write alike. James and Paul need not write 
alike about works and faith. Also, in different parts 
of the same writer’s work, there may be great diversi- 
ties without inconsistency. -Every New Testament 
writer is consistent with himself, but it is his whole 
self, from first to last, from early all the way to late, 
that we are to estimate. 

25. Rhetorical figures are,in general,to be interpreted 
as in any other book, except that we cannot hold the New 
Testament to the high rhetorical standard of the classics. 
One of the greatest errors in exegesis is confounding lit- 
eral and figurative language; nor is it always easy to 
avoid this. The deeper the subject, the harder it is to 
draw the line between literal and figurative expressions. 


34 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


When Jesus says, “I go that I may awake him out of 
sleep” (John xi. 11), no one doubts his beautiful figurative 
meaning; but when he says (xiv. 2), “I go to prepare a 
place for you,” we are put upon reflection as to whether 
his language is literal or not. So the language applied 
to Christian experience, to communion with God, to the 
nature of God, to the unity of Christ and the church, and 
to the second coming, suffers such a strain of expansion 
that we hardly know what literary designation it deserves. 
Indeed it is not always necessary to determine this. We 
may catch the truth and power of a passage without rais- 
ing any literary question whatever. 

26. There is a sort of figurative force in certain com- 
mands that represent ideal attainments rather than ex- 
plicit and universal directions. Dr. Maudsley, in speak- 
ing of the faclure of Christian morality, says: “Could 
there be a more unhappy spectacle than that of the poor 
wretch who should take its moral maxims in literal 
earnest, and make them the strict rules of his life? The 
plain effects of them are to make beggars and impostors 
by profusion of charity; to invite affronts by easy for- 
giveness of injuries; to render it the interest of no one 
either to befriend or to forbear injuring another, because 
of its rigid inculcation of the same loving attitude towards 
friend and enemy,” etc.* This failure of Christian 
morality should rather be called the failure of unchristian 
exegesis. “Whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, 
turn to him the other also.” Matt. v.39. This means 

*‘Body and Will,”’ pp. 167, 168. 


. 
; 
| 
᾿ 
“ 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 35 


more than face and cheeks and non-resistance; it means 
the heroism and self-sacrifice of love. Cheek-turning is 
but a symbol of heart-yearning. 

27. Similes in the New Testament are either formal 
or informal, i. e., expanded metaphor. Example of the 
former: “As the lightning cometh forth from the east, 
and is seen even unto the west, so shall be the coming of 
the Son of Man.” Matt. xxiv. 27. Of the latter: “What 
is your life? For ye are a vapor that appeareth for a 
little time, and then vanisheth away.” Jas. iv. 14. Sim- 
iles are either argumentative, or purely illustrative. Paul 
in 1 Cor. xv. 35-38 makes the seed sown not merely illus- 
trative, but suggestive of the analogy between God’s 
work in vegetable nature and in man’s body. Similes 
of pure illustration must not be mistaken for those of 
argument; and similes of either kind must be interpreted 
according to their main point, and not pressed for minute 
resemblances. 

28. Parables may be regarded as extended similes, 
and require the same caution against overpressing the 
particulars of the comparison. There is special danger 
of this, because the parable has a certain narrative or 
pictorial interest of its own, and therefore demands cer- 
tain details independent of the lesson taught. Parables 
include narratives wholly, or partly, fictitious. It is not 
very important to determine whether a parabolic story is 
imaginary or not. What difference would it make, if 
the Prodigal Son, or the Good Samaritan, should be proved, 
to a certainty, to be authentic narratives of fact in every 


26 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


detail? The association of either with exact names and 
dates might interest some readers more, but the truths 
taught would be the same, and the imagination of the 
reader might impress the truths better than the details of 
the biographer. 

29. “Inerrancy” is a term sometimes used for a use- 
less accuracy, or an accuracy in unimportant particulars. 
This accuracy, as applied to the original, but unknown, 
and forever unattainable, autographs, has been maintained 
on the ground that if the least variation from fact exists, 
then there may be the greatest variations and the gravest 
errors; for “we cannot draw the line.” This reasoning 
is logically fallacious, and contrary to common sense—the 
embodiment of exegetical pettiness. As well say that if 
a man misspells a word he cannot be trusted to tell the 
truth. The New Testament may not be “inerrant” ac- 
cording to the standard of modern historical science, but 
it is not erroneous. The cup may have flaws, but it holds 
the pure water of life. Every speaker, as Stephen, de- 
livers his frath to his willing hearers, and his inaccura- 
cies, if any, to his laborious critics. It is the prime 
business of the interpreter to exhibit that truth ; his second- 
ary duty to examine alleged inaccuracies, estimate their 
value, and assign them, if proved, to their place in the 
necessary limitations of the writer. He need not fear 
them, nor make much ado over them, always remember- 
ing that we may be mistaken as to matters of fact, and 
that our most positive conclusions may be set aside by the 
discoveries and the critical science of the next generation. 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 37 


30. Primary exegesis avoids all conflict with modern 
science and philosophy, because it moves on a different 
plane. Secondary exegesis avoids it, because it conforms 
to modern conditions, 

31. The quotations from the Old Testament should be 
received in the spirit in which they are made. E. g. 
Matthew applies the words, “ Out of Egypt did I call my 
son” (Matt. ii. 15), to the infant Savior. We need not 
trouble ourselves to prove that the nation of Israel was a 
type of Christ, or that Matthew was “ Rabbinical” in his 
methods. Filled with an ardor for Christ that would see 
him everywhere, he saw Christ in those words, and de- 
clared that the striking and beautiful fulfillment of them 
was not accidental, but Divinely intended; and we may 
now say that He who numbers the hairs of our heads, 
could certainly include these words among his purposes 
concerning Jesus. 

32. There are two ways of harmonizing seeming dis- 
crepancies in New Testament narratives: (1) by using 
the statements as supplements, (2) by accepting them as 
equivalents. E. g., for Matthew’s (xili. 55) “Is not this 
the carpenter’s son?” and Mark’s (vi. 3) “Isnot this the 
carpenter?” Tatian’s Diatessaron, the earliest known Har- 
mony, has “Is not this the carpenter, the son of the 
carpenter ?”*—a very simple example of harmony by sup- 
plement. Further, when Matthew says “Kingdom of 
Heaven” and Luke says “ Kingdom of God,” in reporting 


*“The Earliest Life of Christ’’(T. and T. Clark), edited by J. Hamlyn Hills; 
p. 112. 


38 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


the very same teachings, we may accept either phrase as 
true, and equivalent to the other, and can hardly imagine 
the two Evangelists disputing over which phrase actually 
passed our Lord’s lips. The accounts of the agony in 
Gethsemane furnish examples of both methods. It is not 
always easy to determine which method of harmonizing 
is to be employed; nor is it always necessary to employ 
either. Harmony is not identity, and harmonization is 
not always harmony. The highest harmony is the con- 
cord of spirit and aim. The exegete is to unfold the 
thought found in each of all the seemingly parallel ac- 
counts, and he gains more light from the differences than 
from the resemblances. 

33. Traditional interpretations of the New Testament 
derive legitimate value from the sifting of time. They 
are the wheat; the chaff has disappeared. On the other 
hand, they may by long habit of association become so 
identified with the text itself, as to forestall free study. 
As a rule, the longer the tradition, the greater its value; 
but a comparatively modern tradition has the advantage 
of being based on a more fully developed system of study, 
while the earliest, as of the Greek Fathers, is based on 
greater familiarity with the language, and closer affinity 
with primitive Christian life. Times of great religious 
activity, as the Reformation, may start traditions of in- 
terpretation that are worthy of the highest respect. In 
general, traditional, like the best contemporary, opinions 
should be respected, even before they are weighed, and 
adopted, or not, after they are weighed, 


ΤΡ SEP Mb Be, ee ie es 


ἕως ἧς im il alia a Pilla i 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 39 


§ 3. METHODS. 


1. The Golden Rule of exegesis is, Put yourself in 
his place, i. e., the place of the writer or speaker, and of 
the original reader or hearer Yet the mind of to-day 
must still be itself, while it stands in the place of the 
mind of the first century. The interpreter of the New 
Testament belongs both to the past and the present, just 
as an interpreter of a foreign language represents two 
countries. And as such an interpreter knows best his 
native tongue, so we must expect that the New Testament 
scholar will be most familiar with his own times, and 
will need to make special exertion to maintain his position 
in the past. He stands in the past to receive; in the pres- 
ent, to give forth what he has received. Of course there 
is a vast field of thought and life that is common to past 
and present, a field broad as human nature itself. This 
putting one’s self in the past refers to the narrower field 
of the peculiarities of the past. 

2. ‘Make good use of the imagination. This is the 
simplest, though superficial, method of putting ourselves 
in another’s place. Other things being equal, he will 
best interpret the language of our Savior in the Garden 
of Gethsemane, who has in his mind the fullest and most 
vivid picture of the scene. The imagination may be 
helped by reading the best books on the scenery and top- 
ography of Eastern lands. Even modern pictures are 
not to be despised. Personal visits will not supersede 
the imagination, and will fail unless they stimulate that 


40 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


faculty. A view of the present may possibly blur the 
vision of the past. 

3. More important than the imagination 13 sympathy. 
This has been already spoken of (§ 1. 3). It can be culti- 
vated by biographical study of New Testament charac- 
ters, so that we can carry a distinct impression of each 
one, and feel quickly the influence of events and persons 
upon each one. Even a certain dramatic sympathy is 
due to the evil characters, whose words form a part of 
the background of the New Testament—to Judas and 
Pilate and Simon Magus—as well as to Peter and John 
and Paul. 

4. Prayer helps us to put ourselves in the place of the 
makers of the New Testament. I do not mean prayer 
without study, but prayer with study; not merely prayer 
for exegetical success in general, but prayer also about 
particular passages. Bring them into the Divine light. 
Pray for light on a dark text, somewhat as you pray for 
light on a dark path of practical duty, or for the success 
of a special enterprise, or for the welfare of a dear friend. 
Prayer brings light by communion with The Light in 
ways that cannot be analyzed. It is peculiarly helpful 
in gaining insight into spiritual truth, for it is itself 
within the sphere of that truth. Prayer opens our hearts 
to the Spirit that inspired the Scriptures. Prayer brings 
hope and cheerfulness in study, and rest to weariness from 
study. 

5. Prepare for the study of a difficult passage by a 
systematic preliminary study of its words, This study 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 41 


would include etymology, different periods of classical 
usage, use in the Septuagint, and in the different periods 
of late Greek, special emphasis being given to contem- 
porary Greek, use in the New Testament itself, and in 
writing later than the New Testament and developed 
from it. All this to be preliminary, because if it be 
mixed up with the strictly exegetical work, there is dan- 
ger that no room will be left for natural first impressions. 
It is when the words are as familiar as possible in them- 
selves, with their various shades and alternatives of mean- 
ing, that we may expect them to show their adjustment 
to the connection, and to tell their own story clearly to 
the open mind. 

6. In general, make careful study of the great words 
and phrases of the book; as ἀγάπη, πίστις, πνεῦμα, δικαιοσύνη, 
ζωὴ αἰώνιος; also the important ἀπαξλεγόμενα, as ϑεόπνευστος, 

7. Study synonyms, as, βίος ζωή, ἀγαπάω φιλέω, and 
those prepositions that are sometimes interchangeable, 
remembering always the flexibility of words, the differ- 
ences of writers, and the variety of usage in the same 
writer. 

8. Look for dectstve words and phrases, it being un- 
derstood that some words are more adaptable, and depend- 
ent on connection, than others. 

9. Sometimes use the side-light of another language in 
word-study. ἘΣ, g., αἰώνιος is illustrated by its Latin 
analogue aefernus. It does not follow that the words, 
though analogous in origin, are identical in meaning, or 
have the same development, but the resemblance is no 


42 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


accident, and the history of both words is the product of 
the same mental laws, and of similar circumstances. The 
usage of both is largely contemporaneous. The objec- 
tions to the meaning of “everlasting,” which have been 
brought against αἰώνιος, are equally applicable to aeter- 
nus, but are never seriously entertained. 

10. In regard to the use of commentaries, wait till you 
feel your need of them. Do not begin the study of a 
passage by consulting them. Make them a servant rather 
than master. Do this although you may know that the 
commentator is wiser and more learned than you. Do it 
as the necessary means of preserving your power of in- 
dependent work. Then after studying and investigating 
as much as you are able, take definite questions, if pos- 
sible, to the commentary and make your own use of the 
answers. After your own conclusions are formed, or 
you have gone as far as you can independently, then test 
your work by the work of others, and make most of those 
commentaries that give reasons, and not merely conclu- 
sions. 

11. Use lexicons more as repositories than as au- 
thorities. They are authorities for the reason that they 
are store-houses of classified usage. ‘They are not mere 
glossaries. They are made from accepted texts, from 
concordances, and from commentaries, besides being in 
the line of long lexical succession. Their classifications, 
and meanings, and references are materials of study, and 
not judicial decisions, terminating study. 

12. A thorough use of the Greek Concordance (Bru- 


ἤν"... 
= ie 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 43 


der’s, or better, Moulton and Geden’s, or The English- 
man’s, with citations in English, or Hastings’, with ref- 
erences only) is fundamental in word-study. Yet this 
greatest of all outside means of study is worth little, if 
employed indiscriminately in piling up statistics of usage 
without regard to author, time, or subject. It is no sub- 
stitute for separate word-study, but simply insures a view 
of all the matter to be studied. It is indispensable to 
original exegetical work. It breaks the yoke of bondage 
to lexicons, by admitting us to a real, though it may be 


- humble, partnership in their work. 


13. -I shall not attempt to make up a book-list for the 
exegete, or to distinguish between those books that should 
be in his own library, and those that may require a short, 
or long, walk to reach them in the great libraries. A 
long list may be found in Professor Vincent’s “ Student’s 
New Testament Handbook,” anda more select list in Pro- 
fessor Thayer’s “ Books and their Use.” Such lists are 
stimulating, unless they are so good and rich and full as 
to be paralyzing. The books that must lie on the writ- 
ing table, or at close hand, are not many—Tischendorf’s 
and Westcott and Hort’s Texts, Liddell and Scott’s and 
Thayer’s Lexicons, a Greek concordance to the New 
Testament, a Septuagint, i. e., Swete’s Old Testament in 
Greek, a concordance to the Septuagint (Hatch and Red- 
path’s, now complete), a Hebrew Bible and Lexicon, an 
English Bible, Received and Revised, an English con- 
cordance, and Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. These, 
especially the last, will point the way to many others, 


44 HINTS ΟΝ NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


14. Passing to more general matters, I suggest the 
need of taking pains to break up routine and monotony. 
Read the passage that is under scrutiny in some foreign 
tongue other than the original. Better read a Choctaw 
Testament than keep on always in a familiar round of 
expression. Vary the methods of reading, now going 
over long passages rapidly, now slowly. Repeat a diffi- 
cult passage to yourself aloud, as naturally as possible. 
Have passages read to you in various ways, remembering 
that the original writers depended mainly on hearers. 
Read even in various forms and sizes of type and page— 
anything to keep one out of a rut. 

15. Learn to hold adifficult passage long in suspense, 
if need be; quietly waiting, at times almost forgetting, 
yet always keeping it where side-light from other study 
may fall on it, or new opportunities of direct study may 
solve the difficulty. 

16. Read and enjoy the clear and easy passages, as 
stepping-stones to the more obscure ; and not for stepping- 
stones only. Do not assume that there is nothing new to 
be seen in familiar texts. 

17. Talk with others about your explanations; not 
merely with scholars, but with plain people. Either the 
attempt to unfold orally your thought will betray its 
weakness, or the excitement of interpretation face to 
face will give point and clearness. At any rate, one can 
brush away the dust that settles on too quiet solitary work. 

18. Watch for favorable mental conditions. There are 
times when the mind is like a field-glass out of focus. 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 45 


We cannot expect much then. There are moods favorable 
or unfavorable to clear views. Make account also of 
physical condition. Do not study any one passage to the 
point of lassitude. It may be a pleasant theory that 
“weak body well is changed for mind’s redoubled force,” 
_ but it is a very unpleasant fact that the body knows how 
to strike back, when the mind has wronged it. 

19. Keep a list of the exegetical problems, e. g. 1 
Cor. xi. 10, Gal. iii. 16, 20, and others, and look them 
over occasionally, but not too frequently, and see whether 
time, which means our use of time and our broadening 
experience, has undermined any of the difficulties. 

20. Vary the points of view,in approaching a difficult 
passage, coming to it now asa logician, now as a poet, 
now as a historian, watching its response to such ques- 
tions as, Is it cool or passionate? Is it dogmatic, or a 
meditative soliloquy? Vary the order of words, and see 
what the difference in meaning would be. Vary the de- 
gree and points of emphasis. Form exegetical hypotheses, 
and test them by reading, or listening to, the passage un- 
der study, and see whether they harmonize or jar. This 
applies especially, but not exclusively, to long passages, 
e. g. Christ’s words about his second coming. 

21. Use grammar more as a check than as a positive 
guide, remembering that grammar comes originally from 
the meaning and not the meaning from grammar. It 
will not do to infer that because a sentence can be put to- 
gether in acertain way grammatically, therefore the mean- 
ing so elicited is respectable, or at least possible. It may 


not be either. 


46 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


22. Try to cast off, for the nonce, your familiarity with 
the New Testament, and read, or hear, it as if for the 
first time. This is not easy; to do it perfectly is not 
possible; but something like it may be done by the help 
of the imagination. The missionary has an advantage 
here, in watching sympathetically the very entrance of 
the divine words into the minds of his converts. Every 
Christian parent has a similar opportunity with his young 
children. But without the help of social interest a mind 
of good literary training, in emptying itself of prejudice, 
in putting itself in the place of the past, can attain some 
of the joy and exhilaration of a new-found treasure. It 
can almost forget its knowledge and substitute discovery 
for memory. 

23. Do not be over-anxious about the usefulness of 
what seems to be the meaning of a passage. The first 
thing is to find the ¢rwe meaning; then the usefulness will 
take care of itself. The apparent sermon-producing 
power of a text is not always its genuine spiritual power. 
That is the practical aim of all good exegesis, and it comes 
only from the truth. 

24. Itis worth while to fill out by the imagination 
what is omitted in intentional brevity. E. g., we read in 
Acts xviii. 11 that Paul stayed at Corinth “a year and six 
months, teaching the word of God.” Exegesis proper has 
nothing to do here, but the exegete who is filled with the 
spirit of his work, and is not satisfied with perfunctory 
explication of words, will kindle with enthusiasm at the 
thought of the daily life of the apostle during those eight- 


HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 47 


een months, in the prime of his vigor and at one of the 
chief centers of ancient civilization. And though the 
interpreter, as such, is allowed no more than a passing 
reference to the eloquent silence of the historian, yet 
the habit of expanding in his own mind compressed out- 
lines of narrative, as a microscopic picture is expanded 
by the magic lantern, is a noble help in interpreting all 
New Testament history. 

25. Practice the exegesis of other authors with some- 
thing of the carefulness employed on the New Testament. 
You will find that this is not the only book containing 
passages “hard to be understood”; and this fact tends to 
remove hard feelings, or fretfulness, in encountering ob- 
scure texts. Such study, also, gives a peculiarly valuable 
exegetical experience. It affords a much needed variety, 
breaks the monotony of style and subject, throws off any: 
factitious solemnity, and returns the mental powers to 
their main task with fresh and broadened energy. Nor 
need this outside experience be confined to Greek and 
Latin. The earlier, and some of the later, English authors 
yield ample room. A month spent in the exegesis of 
Shakespeare is good preparation for a month on Paul. 
And if one wishes practice in Higher Criticism, Shake- 
speare offers a fine and harmless opportunity. 

26. Be willing to accept a part, if you cannot have the 
whole. There is great virtue in exegetical entering- 
wedges. Secure every inch gained. Hold fast by every 
word that is settled. Look steadily in every hopeful di- 
rection of drift of thought. Work and watch and wait; 


48 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 


then watch and work again. Also be willing, so far as 
this is consistent with indomitable perseverance, to leave 
many things forever unexplained. This humble, but 
open-eyed, willingness to be left in the dark may be the 
forerunner of unexpected light. 


DISCUSSIONS 


I 


A POINT OF GRAMMAR IN THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS” 


Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις ϑεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνϑρώποις εὐδοχεία. 
—PSALTER, Cod. A, Hymn xiv. 

Δόξα ἐν ὑφίστοις ϑεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνϑρώποις εὐδοχίας. 
—LUKE ii. 14. 
Ir is unfortunate for English-speaking and English- 
singing people that there is a textual difficulty in the 
Gloria in Excelsts. It makes very little difference in 
Greek which of the two forms given above is used. It 
is a matter of only one letter, and a chorus of singers need 
not raise a nice question of syntax on that account. But 
in English it makes a difference, at least in respect to 
clearness, whether we say and sing, “ On earth peace, good- 
will toward men,” or, with the Revised Version, “On 

earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased.” 

There is no escape, however, from the evidence that 
εὐδοχίας is the true reading in Luke. A clear and full 
discussion of the text may be found in Westcott and 
Hort’s New Testament, vol. ii., Appendix, pp. 52-56, 
Am. Ed. We find there, also, as subsidiary to the settle- 
ment of the text, certain points of interpretation which 
will be alluded to in the following discussion. The 


49 


50 THE “GLORIA ΙΝ EXCELSIS” 


learned editors consider the phrase dv8pdzatg εὐδοχίας a 
Hebraism which would be literally translated “men of 
good pleasure.” This is substantially the rendering of 
the Revised Version. 

There are some objections to this construction. 

1. There is the very serious objection that the mean- 
ing is not obvious. If εὐδοχία meant. good-will as a 
moral quality, then “men of good-will,” as the Rheims 
version has it, would be intelligible. But what does 
“men of good pleasure” mean? The meaning “men who 
are the objects of some one’s good pleasure” certainly is 
not very natural. 

2. The construction is foreign to Greek, which does 
not admit a “ genitive of characteristic” with a personal 
noun, except as a predicate. Whether it is a Hebraism 
or not will be considered presently. It might possibly 
pass for a Latinism, but it goes even beyond the Latin, 
which does not allow this genitive without a modifying 
adjective—a difficulty overcome in the Vulgate by the 
phrase “ hominibus bonae voluntatis.” ‘The point is that 
εὐδοχίας combined with ἀνϑρώποις is not genuine Greek. 

3. It is not clear that the construction is a Hebraism, 
if it carries with it the meaning “men who are the ob- 
jects of favor, or good pleasure.” Cremer says (Lex., p. 
215, Edin. Ed.) that if εὐδοχέας is the correct reading 
the phrase is to be explained like τέχνα ὀργῆς, and vids 
βασιλείας. But this very striking Hebraism is very differ- 
ent from the far simpler idiom “ man of,” which is perhaps 
as common in English as in Hebrew. We find in the 


THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS ” 51 


New Testament χριτὴς τῆς ddtxtas—which certainly does 
not mean “ judge who is the object, or victim, of injus- 
tice”—and a few other similar phrases that signify per- 
sons possessed of certain qualities expressed by the geni- 
tive. Neither in the New Testament nor in the Septua- 
gint, outside of this passage, is εὐδοχίας found in com- 
bination with a personal noun that expresses the object 
of eddoxta. Such a phrase as χαιρὸς εὐδοχίας in Psalm 
Ixviii. 14 (Ixix. 13), “time of favor,” is quite different. 
What is more, the nearest Hebrew equivalent of εὐδοχέα, 
J, furnishes no parallel. There is no “man of favor,” 
although we have “day of favor” (Isa. lviii. 5), and 
“year of favor” (Isa. lxi. 2), which latter is quoted in 
Luke iv. 19, as ἐνιαυτὸν δεχτόν. The usage with jm ap- 


pears to be the same. JM MWS (Prov. xi. 16) is trans- 


lated in the Septuagint γυνὴ εὐχάριστος. In Daniel x. 11, 
19, we find the original of “man greatly beloved” to be 


NPN Ws, translated in the Vulgate vir desideriorum, 


but probably meaning “a man of charms,” literally “man 
of precious things.” Everything seems to show that the 
Hebraism “son of” stands by itself. To identify this 
with “man of” seems to be putting a grammatical—-we 
might almost say mechanical—identity for an identity of 
idiom. The distinction is well illustrated by English 
usage, for we say “a man of wealth, of influence,” etc., 
but not “a man of kindness (received), of anger (incurred), 
of caprice (inflicted).” Τὸ put the case in terms of gram- 
mar, the limiting genitive must be equivalent to an ad- 


52 THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS ” 


jective, and not to a passive participle. This distinction 
between “son of” as meaning often “the object of,” “in 
the condition of,” and “man of” as meaning always 
“possessed of” certain qualities, seems to be accepted by 
Gesenius in the articles under }2 and W&. If it is valid, 
the basis for the interpretation “men of good pleasure” 
disappears. | | 

To put the three objections into one, we may say that 
an over-strained Hebraism displaces a normal Greek con- 
struction and leads to an obscure meaning. Bishop West- 
cott, in his separate opinion (Appendix, p. 56), says 
well “” Avdpazorg εὐδοχίας is undoubtedly a difficult phrase.” 

I wish now to show that eddoxtag modifies directly 
εἰρήνη instead of ἀνϑρώποις, and is itself modified by the 
phrase ἐν ἀνϑρώποις. The literal translation would be 
“ and on earth peace, [the peace | of good-pleasure in men,” 
i. e., the peace that comes from favor, good-will,towards 
men. 

In support of this I offer: 

1. The ἐν ἀνϑρώποις eddoxta of the early Greek Psalters. 
The Biblical Codex Alexandrinus, assigned to the fifth 
century, contains the Gloria placed at the head of this 
discussion. The whole hymn—Morning Hymn, °Ypvog 
gwdwvds—may be found in Swete’s “Old Testament in 
Greek,” Vol. III., p. 810. It is mostly the “Gloria in 
Excelsis” of our modern hymn-books, but this is followed 
by five lines borrowed by, or at least belonging to, the 
Te Deum, lines containing the only matter specially ap- 
propriate to morning :— 


THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS ” 53 


χαταξίωσον, χύριε, καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην 

ἀναμαρτήτους φυλαχϑῆναι ἡμᾶς, 
and by thirteen lines from Bible sources. There is 
some advantage in coming to the Gloria of Luke by 
way of the Psalter. Here we find—dropping the 
Egyptian peculiarity of -efa for -fa—eddoxia. It is 
granted that this nominative case is not entitled to 
a place in the text of Luke, but, even if it is a cor- 
ruption of Luke’s text, it is genuine Greek, with a re- 
spectable history of itsown, and a right to a fair inter- 
pretation. What, then, does ἐν ἀνϑρώποις eddoxta mean in 
the Psalter? I cannot doubt that it means “ good pleasure 
in men.” This meaning is maintained by Cremer, on the 
supposition of its being the true reading in Luke, but 
doubted by Westcott and Hort. It is favored— 

(2) By the combination of ἐν with eddoxéw in the ac- 
counts of the baptism: ἐν σοὶ εὐδόχησα, Mark i. 11, Luke 
111, 223 ἐν ᾧ ηὐδόχησα, Matt. iii. 17; also of the transfig- 
uration, Matt. xvii. 5. The other similar examples in 
the New Testament are οὐχ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδόχησεν 
ὁ ϑεός, 1 Cor. x. 5, and (of things instead of persons) 
διὸ εὐδοχῶ ἐν ἀσϑενείαις, ἐν ὕβρεσιν, x. τ. Δ.) 2 Cor. xii. 10. 
Examples in the Septuagint are dre ηὐδόχησεν ἐν ἐμοί, 2 
Kings (2 Sam.) xxii. 20, and οὐχ εὐδοχεῖ ἡ ψυχή pov ἐν 
αὐτῷ, Hab. ii. 4, cited in Heb. x. 38. 

(ὁ) The order of words, which Westcott and Hort con- 
sider “unaccountable,” might certainly be in prose eddoxta 
ἐν ἀνϑρώποις ; but in a lyrical outburst like this would not 


9] 

κ γ᾿ 

“en & Ai 9 
ως ve ae 


UNIVERSIT 


i ree 
ἌΩΝΑΝ 
OR Na 


ἤ 


7 


54 THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS ” 


the order with εὐδοχία last be not only allowable, but more 
forcible? - 

(c) The absence of examples of the sabstantive εὐδοχία 
used with ἐν and the dative, which seems to us the only 
weak point in this interpretation, may be met by the gen- 
eral principle that verbal nouns imitate the construction 
of their verbs. We have examples enough of their gov- 
erning the dative even without a preposition. The fol- 
lowing are instances in the New Testament: εἰς draxoviay 
τοῖς ἁγίοις, 1 Cor. xvi. 153 διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ Bed, 
2 Cor. ix. 12. 

(4) This interpretation allows a natural division of the 
song into two clauses. A division into three clauses is 
hardly admissible, but would result from understanding 
ἐν ἀνϑρώποις locally, “among men.” In the twofold 
division each part would have three subdivisions. Chang- 
ing the place of δόξα, to facilitate comparison, we have 


ἐν ὑψίστοις δόξα ϑεῷ 

χαὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνϑρώποις εὐδοχία. 
A verbally exact parallel would give at the end of the 
second clause simply ἀνϑρώποις.---“ On high glory to God, 
On earth peace to men,”—but instead of peace to men we 
have a larger thought which includes this, namely, the 
peace that comes from the divine favor towards men, 
reconciliation with men. No connective is needed before 
ἐν ἀνϑρώποις because this phrase is appositive and 
explanatory of εἰρήνη; the same thought that we sing, 


with amplification, in the lines: 


THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS ” 55 


‘Peace on earth, and mercy mild, 
God and sinners reconciled.” 


All this in interpretation not of Luke ii. 14, directly, 
but of a part of Hymn xiv. of the ancient Psalter. Let 
us now make use of this in explaining Luke. 

2. The phrase ἐν ἀνϑρώποις εὐδοχίας in Luke ii. 14 
should be combined in the same manner as the corre- 
sponding phrase in the Psalter. - Several considerations 
point to this. 

(a) The genitive case, found here instead of a nomi- 
native, gives a different grammatical connection for the 
phrase as a whole, but does not invalidate any of the rea- 
sons just brought forward in the case of the Psalter in 
regard to the meaning of the phrase itself. It merely 
offers us another possible construction, namely, as a geni- 
tive limiting ἀνϑρώποις only, the objections to which 
have been already considered (p. 50). 

(4) If the eddoxta of the Psalter arose from a scribe’s 
error in copying Luke, the error would be more likely to 
take place if the construction with ἐν ἀνϑρώποις were un- 
derstood to be the same. Constructions so different as 
“among men of good pleasure” and “good pleasure in 
men,” would arrest the attention and prevent ‘mistake 
from carelessness. If the change was intentional, the 
scribe could have best justified it by claiming that the ac- 
companying construction was unchanged, while a prob- 
ably original conformity to the case of εἰρήνη was 
restored. Is it not a sound textual principle that in vari- 
ations the least possible disturbance of context is to be 


assumed ? 


56 THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS ” 


(c) A song like this, short, easily remembered, and of 
intense interest to the Christian communities, must have 
been communicated largely by oral tradition. This makes 
for the same combination, whether the nominative or 
genitive were used. The phrase-meaning would naturally 
remain unchanged, while the variation in the last word 
would simply determine the relation of the phrase to 
εἰρήνη. The difference in meaning would pass for nothing 
in repetition from memory. ‘The thought in both cases 
would be “peace on earth, good pleasure in men,” the 
second phrase being in the one case an explanatory ap- 
positive, and in the other an explanatory genitive sug- 
gesting the origin of the peace. 

This unstudied oral transmission, which leads us back 
of the scribe bending laboriously, or, as the case may be, 
carelessly, over his parchment, may be assumed from the 
very early difference between Luke and the Psalter. In- 
deed we do not know that Luke was the first to pen the 
angel-song in Greek. When therefore we find in the 
Codex Alexandrinus εὐδοχίας in Luke, and eddoxfa in 
the Psalter, both from the hand of the same scribe, we 
may well suppose that both words came down independ- 
ently from the time of those traditions spoken of by Luke 
in his Preface. It does not take many generations of 
manuscripts to reach from the fifth century to the first. 

(4) If the order of words is an objection to combining 
eddoxta (nom.) with ἐν d%peézores—though we cannot 
but think it of small account—the objection is removed 
by the use of εὐδοχέας (gen.); for if eddoxtas, as modified 


THE “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS” 57 


by ἐν ἀνϑρώποις, is combined with εἰρήνη, it would be a 
natural order even inprose to put ἐν ἀνϑρώποις between 
the two. Without doubt, we should in prose look for 
the article after e/pyvy—y τῆς ἐν ἀνϑρώποις ebdoxtas—but this 
burst of song is not prose. No article is found in it, al- 
though the generosity of Greek might have given us six or 
seven in prose. Compare Luke xix. 38, ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη xat 
δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, where we might have had four articles. 

This exegesis of Luke, reasonable when taken by 
itself, is thus strongly supported by the Psalter, in 
which the meaning “good pleasure in men” is, 1 can- 
not but think, the only one admissible. The case is 
not, indeed, the same as if another evangelist had 
given the reading eddoxta, but if Matthew had recorded 
the angel’s song, and had written eddoxfa, one could hardly 
avoid saying that both he and Luke were substantially 
at one, and meant “good pleasure in men.” 

Our general conclusion, then, is that the meaning of 
the second clause in Luke ii. 14 is “On earth peace—the 
peace of good pleasure in men,” reconciliation with men, 
good-will towards men. It isa pleasant result of this 
discussion to find that what we still sing in the Gloria in 
Excelsis and what: we read in the Greek of Luke are so 
closely alike. The peace on earth is “the peace of God,” 
and the song of the heavenly host is constantly echoed in 
the gospel benedictions—“ Grace, Mercy, and Peace.” 


II 
᾿Επιούσιος, TRANSLATED IN THE LORD’S PRAYER “ DAILY.” 
Tov ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον. 
—Matt. vi. 11, 
Tov ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ xaP ἡμέραν. 
—Luke xi. 3. 
THE word ἐπιούσιος seems never to have been fully 
incorporated into the Greek language. Not found earlier 
than the New Testament, it has, even in later ecclesiasti- 
cal Greek, the position of a quoted rather than an adopted 
word. In the New Testament itself it is found but twice, 
and practically but once. 


§ I. SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSION. 


᾿Επιούσιος has undoubtedly received more lexical discus- 
sion than any other word in the New Testament. The 
long series goes back more than sixteen centuries, to the 
Father of Biblical Criticism. Origen in his “ Treatise 
on Prayer,” which is largely an exposition of the Lord’s 
Prayer, says: “Since some suppose that we are told to 
pray for bread for the body, it is worth while, after hay- 
ing in this way refuted their false notions, to settle the 
truth in regard to the substantial (ἐπιούσιον) bread. . . . 
First, this must be understood, that the word ἐπιούσιον is 
found in none of the Greeks, being used neither by phi- 
losophers nor in the current speech of ordinary men, but 
it seems to have been formed by the Evangelists. At 

58 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 59- 


any rate Matthew and Luke agreed about the word, hav- 
ing brought it out without any difference whatever. The 
translators of the Hebrew have done the same in the case 
of other words. For who of the Greeks ever used the 
expression ἐνωτέζου [in-ear] or ἀχουτίσϑητι [make-hear] in- 
stead of εἰς τὰ ὦτα δέξαι [receive into your ears] and 
ἀχοῦσαι ποιεῖς [cause you to hear]? Quite like ἐπιούσιος 
is a word in the writings of Moses, spoken by God, 
‘Ye shall be to me a people περιούσιος᾽ ; and both words 
seem to me to have been formed from οὐσία [substance] ; 
the former meaning bread converted into our substance, 
the latter signifying a people employed about substance 
[what is substantial? ] and devoted to it. . . . Justas 
bodily bread by being brought into union with the body for 
its nourishment passes into its substance,so the living bread 
that came down from heaven, being brought into union 
with the mind and the soul, imparts of its virtue to him 
who has given himself up to be nourished by it. And 
so will it-be what we ask for as substantial bread.”* Many 
points of remark are suggested by this, but I will speak 
only of etymology. The derivation given by Origen, 
which, whether original with him or not, has its earliest 
record in his writings, has had a long and honorable life, 
and finds an able advocacy, though with a different mean- 
ing, in one of the latest New Testament lexicons, the 
“ Biblico-Theological Lexicon” of Prof. Hermann Cre- 
mer. In regard to the coining of the word by the Evan- 
gelists, Origen was, no doubt, influenced by his belief 
*Orig. Op, Omn. I. Col. 505-511. (Migne Patr, Gr. XI.) 


60 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew, and then translated. 
A translator is more likely to coin words than an inde- 
pendent narrator. But if Matthew’s Greek is the origi- 
nal, as most scholars now think, there may have been 
also a current Lord’s Prayer in Greek, which was incor- 
porated by both Matthew and Luke into their Gospels. 
Again, the word περιούσιος might deceive even Origen 
by a false analogy. We know that the philology of the 
ancients cannot be trusted, though it is not so with their 
usage. Ludicrous examples of false derivation can be 
found in Cicero, but perhaps only one case of error in the 
use of a word; and that we should hesitate to believe if 
he had not himself confessed it. It seems to me that the 
strongest point in favor of Origen’s derivation—not ex- 
planation—of ἐπιούσιος is that he makes no account of the 
retention of the final letter of ἐπὶ in composition with 
οὐσία. This was a matter not of reasoning, but of Greek 
feeling. Was it simple inadvertence? 

We ought next to notice the opinion of “the Latin 
Origen.” Portions of Jerome’s comment on Matt. vi. 
11 are often quoted. Entire, it is as follows :—“* What we 
have translated super-substantialem is given in Greek 
ἐπιούσιον, which word the Seventy Translators most 
frequently give as περιούσιον. We have examined 
therefore the Hebrew, and wherever they have used ze- 
ριούσιον we have found SGOLIA,* which Symmachus has 
translated ἐξαέρετον, that is, pre-eminent or distinguished, 
although in a certain passage he has expressed it by 


* 7720, Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 2; xxvi, 18. 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 61 


peculiare [private treasure]. When, therefore, we ask 
of God to bestow upon us that bread which is a peculiar 
treasure, or pre-eminent, we ask for Him who says, ‘I 
am the living bread, which came down from heaven.’ In 
the Gospel which is called ‘according to the Hebrews,’ 
instead of supersubstantial bread I have found MAHAR, 
which means ‘for to-morrow’; so that the sense is: Our 
bread for to-morrow, that is, for the future give us to- 
day. We-can understand supersubstantial bread, also, in 
another way, as that which is above all substances and 
surpasses the whole world of creatures. Others suppose 
simply that the saints have a care for present food only, 
according to the language of the apostle whosays, ‘Hav- 
ing food and raiment, let us with these be content.’ Ac- 
cordingly, among the subsequent precepts is this one, 
‘Do not take thought for the morrow.’ ”* 

Jerome here presents four meanings of ἐπιούσιος, his 
own preference being the first. His identifying περιούσιος 
and ἐπιούσιος is rather surprising from ἃ philological 
point of view, but he evidently looks at the matter practi- 
cally, and follows his master Origen in ascribing about 
the same meaning to both. The fourth meaning, “ pres- 
ent bread,” comes from giving to ἔπειμε the sense of 
πάρειμι. But the point of chief interest isthe reference 
to the “ Gospel according to the Hebrews,” which means 
not simply a Gospel written in Hebrew, but a Gospel 
composed, or received, by certain Hebrews. In Book III. 


*Hieron. op. omn, vii, Col. 44. (Migne, Patrol. Lat. Vol. 26.) In Evan. Matt, 
Lib. I. Cap. vi. 


62 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


Contra Pelagium he describes it as the gospel written in 
the Chaldaic and Syrian language in Hebrew letters, and 
used even to his day by the Nazarenes.* He also, on 
Matt. xii. 13, speaks of “the Gospel which the Nazarenes 
and Ebionites use, which lately we translated from He- 
brew into Greek, and which is called by most the origi- 
nal Gospel of Matthew.”+ | 

He also states that he has translated it into Latin and 
that Origen often makes use of it. 

This reference to the Hebrew, or Aramaic, Gospel is a 
testimony, whatever it may be worth, to the derivation 
from ἐπέ and ἰέναι. If it were the original of 
Matthew, it would also settle the meaning of the word. 
But if it was simply a translation, like its Syriac sisters, 
or an Ebionitic tractate, then its MAHAR is merely the 
opinion of an unknown author of an almost unknown 
version.§ This leads to the question, Why did not Jerome, 
and why also did not Origen follow the rendering of 
ἐπιούσιος found in the Hebrew Gospel? And the only 
possible answer is that neither of them believed this Gos- 
pel to be the original of Matthew, or otherwise authori- 
tative. 


*In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, sed 
Hebraicis litteris, scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni. Migne’s 
edition II. 785. 

tIn Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae (quod nuper in Graecum de 
Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenti- 
cum). Migne vii. 77. 

jEvangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in 
Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origines saepe utitur. 
Migne ii. 831. 

§All the extant fragments of this Gospel may be found in Hilgenfgld’s “Novum 
Testamentum extra Canonem,” Fasc. iv. Ed. li p.15. They contain but twenty- 
five Hebrew words, and with all the Greek and Latin interpretations occupy but 
two and a half pages. There is a thoroughly annotated edition by E. Β. Nichol- 
son, Bodleian Librarian, London, 1879, 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER at τ 


It isa long step—in time and in style—from Jerome 
to Calvin, and to the following pithy. lines: “ Because 
the kindness of God flows in a continuous course for our 
nourishment, the bread that he supplies is called ἐπιούσιος, 
that is, superventens [still-coming], for so we may 
render it; as much as to say: Lord, since daily our life 
has need of new nourishments, be thou never wearied in 
constantly bestowing them.”* 

If the great theologian had had as much influence in 
this exegesis as in his theology, a world of subsequent 
discussion would have been saved. The mcaning of “ su- 
perveniens” may be illustrated from Horace, where he 
says, speaking of the transitoriness of our possessions, — 


Sic quia perpetuus nulli datur usus, et heres 
Heredem alterius velut unda suservenzt undam. 
Ep. ii. 2, 175-6. 

Calvin’s implied etymology shows that the derivation 
from ἐπιέναι, which he does not think it necessary to 
discuss, was familiar to scholars. 

In passing from Calvin to Tholuck one omits between 
fifty and sixty of the seventy-five “ philologians and theo- 
logians” mentioned by the latter in his discussion of this 
word. This discussion is found in the “ Exposition of 
the Sermon on the Mount,” pages 341-353 of the edition 
in English.f It is marked by great learning and acute- 


*Quia Dei benignitas continuo tenore ad nos pascendos fluit, panis quem min- 
“΄ [4 + - , . . . 
istrat vocatur ἐπιούσιος, hoc est, superveniens: sic enim interpretari licet. 


Tantundem ergo volet hoc nomen acsi dictum esset: Domine, quum quotidie 
novis alimentis opus habeat vita nostra, ne assidue ea largiendo unquam fati- 
geris.—loannis Calvini in Harmoniam ex Matthaeo, Marco et Luca compositam 
Commentarii. Berolini, 1833. Ed. Tholuck, Vol. i. p. 169. 

}Brown’s translation (τ. ἃ T, Clark, Edinburgh, 1860), which i is from the fourth 
German edition, 1856, The first German edition was published in 1833. 


64 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


ness, and especially by the great number of quoted opin- 
ions. ‘That the author does not refer to Calvin is the 
more noticeable because he himself edited the Commen- 
tary from which I have quoted. 

He opens by saying, “This word has been the subject 
of numerous learned disquisitions, yet is there room for 
new investigations. Scultetus calls the interpretation of 
ἐπιούσιος carnificina theologorum et grammaticorum.” 

The derivation of the word is fully considered, with this 
conclusion: “Great as are the difficulties in the way 
of deriving ἐπιούσιος from εἶναι, yet, even were they 
greater, we must still give the preference to that deriva- 
tion, and for this reason, that it is impossible, on the sup- 
position of its derivation from ἐπιοῦσα, to find in it any 
meaning in keeping with the context.” (P. 346.) “The 
notion of Ernesti that the prayer was to be offered in the 
evening, so that then one would literally pray to-day for 
the bread of to-morrow, looks like jesting.” (P. 345.) 

The meaning is given thus: “The ἐπιούσιον is some- 
thing between τὸ ἐλλιπές and the περιττόν or the περιούσιον, 
and denotes that which is just enough. So _ under- 
stood, the prayer has many analogies in the Old and 
New Testaments; compare, for example, Prov. xxx. ὃ, 
where Solomon prays, “Keep far from me poverty and 
riches.’” (P. 348.) 

The discussion closes with a refutation of the mystical 
view that ἐπιούσιος refers to spiritual bread. The whole 
discussion is a noble exemplification of modern Biblical 
scholarship. 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 65 


The next specially noteworthy discussion of 
ἐπιούσιος is the contribution of philological scholar- 
ship. Leo Meyer devotes to it twenty-nine pages in the 
“ Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung,” Vol. 
vii., pp. 401-430. (Berlin, 1858.) Herodotus, Xenophon, 
Plato, Demosthenes and the tragedians are brought into 
the field as well as the Biblical writers, and one page con- 
tains forty references to Homer on the question of ἐπί 
with or without its final vowel. The two etymologies— 
from εἶναε and ?éva:--are considered at length, and 
comparative etymology is not neglected. It is only after 
more than twenty pages of historical and philological 
preparation that we reach the announcement, “ Wir kom- 
men nun zu ἐπιούσιος selbst.” He derives it from ἐπέ 
and ὄντ-, and gives the principal meaning to the prepo- 
sition. ᾿Επιούσιος “is being for something,” 1. e., useful, 
serviceable. While the linguistic value of this essay is 
great, the artificial aspect of the proposed word-building 
makes it seem more like a philological specimen than an 
actual word. Ancient versions are not discussed, except 
that a page is given to the Gothic. This is valuable, as 
would be expected from the author’s scholarship in that 
field. 

This short sketch—mere fragments of an outline—of 
the lexical history of ἐπιούσιος began with the greatest 
of the Fathers, and may fitly end with one of the great- 
est of modern Patristic scholars. When the revisers 
were at the beginning of their work, Bishop Lightfoot, 
certainly their leader, issued (1871) his book “Ona Fresh 


66 Ἐπιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


Revision of the English New Testament,” with an ap- 
pendix on the words ἐπιούσιος, περιούσιος This is 
Appendix I. of the third edition (1891), which I use. 
To ἐπιούσιος forty-three pages are given (217-260). The 
divisions are (1) The etymology of the word, (2) The 
requirements of the sense, (3) The tenor of tradition. 
All but seven pages is devoted to the third division. Of 
this he says (p. 219): “It was chiefly the conviction that 
justice had not been done to its consideration which led 
me to institute the investigation afresh.” Under the 
third division he discusses the derivation of the word as 
found (1) in the Greek Fathers, (2) in the Aramaic ver- 
sions, especially the Curetonian Syriac, and the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, (3) in the Egyptian versions, 
and (4) in the Latin,—especially the Old Latin. The 
two lines given to the Gothic (p. 258) can be supplemented 
by the page of Leo Meyer already referred to. Earliest 
tradition is shown to favor the derivation from ézeévat. 


§ 2. ETYMOLOGY AND MEANING. 


In regard to the etymology, we might make short work 
of it, so far as Greek is concerned, if we could adopt the 
desperate conjecture of Dr. Cureton, who thinks that ἐπε- 
ούσιος was formed from the Aramaic by transliteration.* 
Letting this pass, we have first to choose between the 
derivation from ἐπί απα εἶναι, or οὐσία, and ἐπί and ἐέναι. 
I assume the latter, referring the reader to Lightfoot 
and Thayer’s Lexicon for the reasons. But the der- 


*See preface to his edition of the Curetonian Syriac Version, ‘‘Remains ofa 
very Antient Recension,”’ etc., p. xvili. 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 67 


ivation from ἐπιέναι may be on either of two lines: 
(1) from ἐπιοῦσα, with ἡμέρα supplied, or (2) from the 
participle ἐπιών direct. The former yields a somewhat 
different meaning from the latter, and is adopted by the 
best authorities. Winer says (N. T. Grammar, p. 97, 
Thayer’s ed.): “ ’Extodcws has probably direct relation 
to the fem. (7) ἐπιοῦσα, sc. ἡμέρα, and accordingly ἄρτος 
ἐπιούσιος means ‘bread for the following day.’” To 
this two objections are made which certainly are worth 
considering. 

1. The first has reference to its form. The adjective 
formed by -ws from ἐπιοῦσα, as a substantive, would 
regularly be ἐπιουσαῖος, like δευτεραῖος (Acts xxviii. 13), 
τεταρταῖος (John xi. 39), δεχαταῖος, etc. This objection 
seems to have originated with Salmasius. Bishop 
Lightfoot questions the validity of it on two grounds: 
“The termination -αἴος in all these adjectives is sug- 
gested by the long -a or -7 of the primitives from which 
they are derived, δευτέρα, τρίτη, etc.; and the short end- 
ing of ἐπιοῦσα is not a parallel case. Moreover, the 
meaning is not the same; for the adjectives in -αῖος 
fix a date, 6. ς΄. τεταρταῖος 7A%ev, ‘he came on the fourth 
day,’ whereas the sense which we require here is much 
more general,implying simply Jossesszon or connection.”* 

One may be pardoned for expressing some surprise at 
this paragraph, for (1) What evidence have we that the 
quantity of the nominative ending was regarded? These 
adjectives are formed on the original ἃ stem, as their 


*On a Fresh Revision ofthe English New Testament, Appendix i. 


68 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


deviation from ἡ shows. The stem-ending was long in 
all first-declension feminines, and always so appeared in 
the genitive and dative cases, whatever the quantity of 
the nominative. I have here and there lighted on the 
following examples of adjectives in -aivg from short- 
ending feminines of this declension: ἀρουραῖος, ἀελλαῖος, 
ἁμαξαῖος, ἐχιδναῖος, ϑαλασσαῖος, μελισσαῖος, potpatos, [ἰισαῖος, 
χαλαξαῖος, AZolic Μοισαῖος. True, we have adjectives in 
τος from nouns of short endings, as δίψεος, and not datos, 
from δίψα; but we also have those in -ἰος from nouns 
of long endings, as τίμιος, ἑσπέριος, ὑἡμέριος, and never 
τιμαῖος, etc. Without doubt, there are more adjectives 
in -atog from long-vowel nouns than from short, but I 
suppose there are a great many more feminine sub- 
stantives ending in - and -a@ than in -% Further, 
while the final stem-vowel is long in the primaries, it 
is shortened in forming the diphthong a. Otherwise 
the ending would be -as. How, then, is «ἀτός even 
“suggested” more by a long nominative ending than 
by ashort one? (2) These numerical adjectives are not 
confined to the fixing of dates, as the lexicons abundantly 
show. Their suffix -cog is general and indefinite. When 
they agree with the subject of a verb, as commonly, the 
date-force is inferential. 7εταρταῖος ἦλθεν is literally “a 
fourth-day man he came.” “Aptos τεταρταῖος would 
mean “ bread of the fourth day,” and ἄρτος ἐπιουσαῖος “bread 
of the next day.” For the very reason that they all im- 
ply ἡμέρα in their primaries, they would attract a new- 
comer, like ἐπεουσαῖος, to theirform. This objection, then, 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 69 


whatever may be its value, seems to be well sustained. 

2. The second objection has been made to rest on the 
incongruity introduced, and which can be seen by read- 
ing the two passages thus: “Give us this day our bread 
for the morrow,” “Give us day by day our bread for the ᾿ 
morrow.” As I have felt this objection strongly myself, 
I perhaps have the right now to say that it has been 
greatly over-rated, for 4 ἐπιοῦσα ἡμέρα is not pre- 
cisely equivalent to ἡ αὔριον. Lightfoot shows plainly 
enough (p. 226) the difference, and illustrates it by re- 
ferring to the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes, lines 20, 
105, to which might be added 83-85. A much better il- 
lustration is furnished by A. H. Wratislaw in his pam- 
phlet entitled “ New evidence as to the origin and mean- 
ing of ἐπιούσιος in the Lord’s Prayer.” Plato’s “Crito” 
opens with the question of Socrates as to why Crito 
comes so early to the prison. It is early dawn (ὄρϑρος 
Batis). He is the bearer of sad news; the ship from 
Delos will be here to-day (τήμερον), and therefore Soc- 
rates must die to-morrow (εἰσαύριον). Socrates does 
not believe that the ship will arrive to-day (τήμερον). 
He promises to give his reason, and then repeats his 
statement in this form: 08 τοίνυν τῆς ἐπιούσης ἡμέρας οἶμαι 
αὐτὸ ἥξειν, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἑτέρας. It cannot be doubted that 
τήμερον and ἐπιούσης refer to the same day. Other 
examples introduced by Mr. Wratislaw do not seem 
to me correctly explained, but this one is clear 
and sufficient. It may be paralleled from the Book of 
Common Prayer,which,in Morning Prayer for families, 


70 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


speaks of being “brought in safety to the beginning of 
this day,” and further on implores “ grace and protection 
for the exsuing day.” 

There is no absurdity, then, in saying, “Give us this 
day our bread for the coming day ;” but, at the same time, 
every one must feel the scant need of the addition, “for 
the coming day.” The petition comes unpleasantly near 
tautology, and that too without emphasis. The same 
impression is made by the language of Luke, “Give us 
day by day our bread for the coming day,” but with less 
propriety in the connection. 

If, now, we put this impression of tautology beside 
the serious objection to the form, already considered,there 
is reason enough for examining carefully the other der- 
ivation from ἐπιέναι, viz., from ἐπιών, disconnected 
from the notion of “day,” especially as the Old Syriac 
version suggests a meaning that could arise in no other 
way. Such a derivation is countenanced by the words 
ἐθέλων ἐϑελούσιος, ἑχών ἔἕχούσιος. This last pair we 
find in the New Testament (1 Cor. ix. 17; Philemon, 
14). Lightfoot, indeed, remarks (p. 223), “No motive 
existed for introducing an adjective by the side of ἐπιών, 
sufficiently powerful to produce the result in an advanced 
stage of the language, when the fertility of creating new 
forms had been greatly impaired.” But such a prioré 
decisions must be received with great caution. And do 
not new forms abound in the later times of a language, 
when word-making becomes more conscious, as the lan- 
guage itself is more the object of study, and writers try 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 71 


io escape the monotony of a fixed vocabulary? At any 
rate, the New Testament, though a small volume, contains 
nearly nine hundred words not found in Greek literature 
before (and including) Aristotle. Most of these bear ob- 
vious marks of derivation, showing themselves to be 
comparatively recent, and not old popular words lifted 
into literary use. 

The existence of the participle, then, does not forbid 
the existence of the similar adjective. The adjective 
turns the single act into a general or habitual state. “E3ddwy 
means “ wishing,” ἐϑελούσιος “voluntary.” The ending 
-og is like the English -y. Compare “snowing” and 
“snowy.” ‘0 ἐπιὼν ἄρτος, literally “the on-coming 
bread,” might mean the next loaf that should come on 
the table, but 6 ἐπιούσιος ἄρτος would mean, not the zext, but, 
if we had such a word, “zext-y bread,” i. e., bread that 
we expect continuously, continually, the constant supply 
of bread; in colloquial parlance, “bread right along.” 
If the point be pressed that ἐπιούσιος is a very unusual 
word, and unlikely to arise in the way now supposed,the 
answer is that it comes from a very common participle 
by means of asuffixthatis verycommon. The participle 
is so common that it is even used substantively, ἡμέρα 
being understood, for “the next day,” ἐπιοῦσα. To illus- 
trate again from English, if one should coin the word 
“ freez-y,” it might seem strange, and might never be 
adopted into the language, but it would be perfectly in- 
telligible, so long as we say “ freez-ing.” 

In regard to form, the stem ἐπίοντ- would by regular 


72 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


euphonic changes become ἐπίοὺς-) very nearly as its 
feminine becomes ἐπιοῦσα. 

One cannot be quite satisfied with any explanation of 
this word that does not suggest some Hebrew equivalent 
or Aramaic original. Now, if it contains the notion of 
a constant supply of need, a continuous bestowment, then 
we naturally look for some Hebrew expression for con- 
tinual, perhaps daily, work and service At once we 
think of the ‘‘continual” offerings and the daily services 
of the sanctuary. The “continual burnt-offering” which 
was to be offered “day by day” (Ex. xxix. 38, 42) was 


Th ndy, « offering of continuance.” In the same use 


of “fF we find “men of continuance” (Ezek.xxxix.14), 
i. e., men employed in regular, constant work ; “ diet of con- 
tinuance,” given to Jehoiachin “every day” (Jer. lii. 34), 
and even “bread of continuance” (Num. iv..7), applied 
to the shew-bread. So much was "¥9{9P used in associa- 
tion with the daily burnt-offering that in later usage it 
stands alone for the offering itself. In Dan. viii. 11, 
12, 13; Xi. 313 xii. 11, it is, literally, the “continuance” 
that is ‘‘taken away.” Our common version has it, the 
“daily sacrifice”; the Revision more accurately, the “con- 
tinual burnt-offering.” 

“197 is usually translated in the Septuagint by διαπαντός, 
as, of ἄρτοι of διαπαντός, Num. iv. 7; several times, mostly 
in later usage, by ἐνδελεχισμός, as ϑυσίαν ἐνδελεχισμοῦ, 
Ex. xxix. 423 ὁλοχαυτώσεις ἐνδελεχισμοῦ, 2 Esdr. iii. 5: 
The most remarkable translation is in Num. iv. 16, 
ἢ Yoota ἡ xa¥ ἡμέραν, which seems to be the begin- 


΄’ 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 73 


ning of that confusion of meanings—continual, daily— 
amounting toa side-development, that has come down to 
our day. It is noticeable that no adjective is used in these 
renderings. Whether ἐπιούσιος would have been some- 
times used, if in existence, we need not inquire. The 
usual phrase in the Vulgate is juge sacrifictum—this 
adjective being used by Horace to describe a perennial 
fountain, jug7s ague fons (Sat. ii. 6, 2). 


§ 3. THREE EARLY VERSIONS. 


The meaning “constant, continual,” which is, to say 
the least, illustrated by the Hebrew, seems to be confirmed 
by the three most important ancient versions, Old 
Syriac, Old Latin, and Gothic. To begin with the 
latest—about A. D. 350—in the Gothic version Matt. vi. 
11 (the corresponding passage in Luke is lost) reads: 
filatf unsarana thana sinteinan gif uns himma daga; 
which may be Englished, with no regard to the Greek, 
word for word: “Bread ours the continual give us 
this day.” Szuztetnan (nom. szxteznus) is given in all the 
glossaries as “daily.” Massman, however, and Bernhardt 
(1884) give two meanings, “immerwahrend, taglich.” Leo 
Meyer in his “Gothische Sprache” (p. 98 ef a/.) gives 
“fortwadhrend, taglich.” Kluge, under Sundflut, gives 
“taglich, immerwahrend” and compares the plant-name 
sin-grun, the Anglo-Saxon stz-grene and sym/le, and 
the Latin semper. The same prefix is seen at least 
twice in Béowulf—szz-ga/, “continual” (154), and szz- 
atht, “night after night” (161). No one would ques- 


γ4 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


tion its connection with szztezzo, a common adverb mean- 
ing “always.” This is found in Mark v. 5 for the origi- 
nal διαπαντός, in xiv. 7 for πάντοτε, in xv. 8 for det. 
The origin of the last part of the word is not perfectly 
clear. Kluge would take it as an obsolete root meaning 
“day” (see Ety. Dict. under “Tag”), and gives “tag- 
lich” as the first meaning. Certainly, the notion of 
“day” lapsed, and “continual,” as the adverb shows, was 
the regular meaning. Probably the chief reason for mak- 
ing siuteins mean “daily,” is that seztezzs, a collateral 
form, is used in 2 Cor. xi. 28 for ἡ za¥ ἡμέραν, where Paul 
speaks of “that which presseth upon me dazly, anxiety 
for all the churches.” But here szztezzs might have its 
proper meaning of “continual” without wandering far 
from the Greek original. Whether, however, “daily” or 
“continual” is the primary meaning, the difference is not 
essential as to its representation of ἐπιούσιος. It does 
not mean “ for the coming day,” but “ constantly recurring.” 

Let us next consider the Old Latin version, or bundle 
of versions. Here we find in Matthew “ Panem nostrum 
cotidianum da nobis hodie”; and in Luke “ Panem nos- 
trum cotidianum da nobis cotidie.”* Whence came this 
“cotidianum”? Certainly not from a literal translation of 
ἐπιούσιος, considered by itself. If the Evangelists had 
wanted a Greek word to express ‘‘daily,” there was one 
ready to hand, found in the writers of that time, and even 


*Old Latin Biblical Texts; No III. The Four Gospels. By Henry J. White. 
Clarendon Press, 1888. Codex Monacensis(q). Some codices—I do not know 
how many—have in Luke the error of ‘“‘hodie”’ instead of ‘‘cotidie.”’ The received 
bac κι τ text has also “hodie’’ in Luke, but the best text, Codex Amiatinus, has 
‘cotidie.”’ : 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 75 


in the New Testament. James comes very near ἄρτος 
ἐφήμερος when he says (ii. 15), “If a brother or sister be 
naked and in lack of daily food”— τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς. 
The Latin Vulgate for this is, of course, “victu quoti- 
diano.” In the absence of any such original in the Lord’s 
Prayer, it is possible to account for the “ cotidianum” either 
by the influence of the context—the σήμερον of Matthew, 
and particularly the za¥ ἡμέραν of Luke, serving to at- 
tract and specialize the general idea of “continual”—or 
by a larger association with continual worship through 
daily offerings, or in a more general way by the tendency 
to speak of the ordinary, constant things of life as “ daily.” 
‘It can hardly be that ‘‘cotidianum’’ came from ἐπιούσιον in 
the sense of “for the morrow” ; for the legitimate develop- 
ment of crastinus would be to futurus, as Jerome says, 
on this very passage, “crastinum, id est futurum.” So 
the Hebrew “11D means “ in time to come ” in Deut. vi. 


20 and in other passages.* 


*This ‘‘cotidianum” must be the parent of the ‘daily’ of modern versions—a 
rendering that will probably hold its own in spite of grammars, dictionaries and 
commentaries. Jerome’s version has ‘‘supersubstantialem” in Matthew, and it is 
hard to believe that he did not put the same wordin Luke. If so, then ‘‘cotid- 
ianum” was forced into the text of Luke by the pressure of the Old Latin. West- 
cottand Hort say (N. Τ, II. 81)—with no reference to this word—‘‘Scribes accus- 
tomed to older forms of text corrupted by unwitting reminiscence the Vulgate 
which they were copying; so that an appreciable part of Jerome’s work had been 
imperceptibly undone when the Vulgate attained its final triumph.” The wonder 
is that Matthew was left unchanged, which was due perhaps to the support of 
Jerome’s Commentary. 

‘ Supersubstantialem” has left its long mark on some modern Roman Catholic 
versions. The Rheims version (1582), which is the basis of the present 
English Catholic Bible, reads, “‘Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.” 
The edition that I have—an American edition with archiepiscopal sanc- 
tion—has this foot-note: ‘In St. Luke the same word is rendered ‘daily 
bread.’ Itis understood of the bread of life which we receive in the Blessed 
Sacrament.” Wyclif, who translated from the Latin Vulgate, gives ‘‘ouir other 
substance.”” The Dutch version (Antwerp, 1598) has ‘'overweselyck,” like the 
“ofer-wistlic” of the ancient Northumbrian interlinear Gospel (Lindisfarne MS.) 
On the other hand, in spite of the authority ofthe Vulgate, all the French ver 
sions have “notre pain quotidien," the authorized Italian has “11 pane nostra, 


76 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


By far the most important versional testimony to the 
meaning of ἐπιούσιος comes from the Old Syriac Gospels. 
The Curetonian fragments, published in 1858, and the 
Sinai MS., published in 1894,—the latter containing only 
the first petition of the Prayer in Matthew—agree in 
having for ἐπιούσιος Le SoV(in the old characters essa, 
in Hebrew characters δ δ, in English, with continental 
vowel-sounds, amina, to be compared with our amen from 
Hebrew). The meaning of the Syriac word is sufficiently 
attested by its biblical usage. In the New Testament it 
is used once, adverbially, to translate διαπαντός, “ always 
a conscience void of offence” (Acts xxiv. 16); several 
times for προσχαρτερέω, “continued steadfastly” (Acts ii. 
46); also for πυχνός, “thine often infirmities” (1 Tim. v. 
23); for προσμένω, “continueth in supplications” (1 Tim. 
v. 5); for ἐχτενῶς, “prayer was made without ceasing” 
[ Rev. earnestly ], (Acts xii. 5); for ἀδιάλειπτος, “ remem- 
bering wzthout ceasing” (1 Thess. i. 3). These examples, 
being outside of the Gospels, are from the Peshitto ver- 
sion. 

In the Old Testament, where the word is of frequent 
occurrence, it regularly represents, often adverbially, the 
Hebrew ὙΠ. It is found in every part of the Old 
Testament, | except the Psalms. Thus Aaron’s breast- 


quotidiano,” and the German, ‘‘Gib uns heute unser tagliches Brod."”’ This is 
taken from the translation of Dr. Allioli, ‘the only authorized German version 
duly approved by the Apostolic 566." To it is appended the following note, 
which, it will be observed, is not an exposition of the Vulgate, but of the 
Greek:—“Wéortlich, unser zur Wesenheit (Nothdurft) gehériges Brod, diess ist 
das Tagliche. Darunter ist alles verstanden was zum Unterhalte der Seele und 
des Leibes nothwendig ist,—das géttliche Wort, der Leib des Herrn, die tagliche 
nothdiirftige Nahrung. (Chrys. Theophl. Aug. Cypr.).”’ This last is substantially 
translated from the Glossa Ordinaria—‘‘panis Corpus Christi est, ut verbum 
Dei, vel ipse Deus, quo quotidie egemus,” cited by Tholuck on Matt. vi. 2. 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER m4 


plate is a memorial “ continually” (Ex. xxviii. 29). The 
burnt offering is “continual” (xxix. 42). The fire is to 
be “ever” on the altar (Lev. vi. 13). The shew-bread is 
“continual” (Num. iv. 7). Nine times in the twenty- 
ninth chapter of Numbers the word is applied to the 
“daily burnt offering.” The eyes of the Lord are “a/- 
ways” upon the land of promise (Deut. xi. 12). Elisha 
passeth by “ continually” (2 Kings iv. 9). The trumpets 
sound “continually” before the ark (1 Chron. xvi. 6). 
And so on in Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs, Isaiah (“ coz- 
tinually upon the watch tower,” xxi. 8), Jeremiah, Eze- 
kiel (“men of continual employment,” xxxix. 14), Daniel 
(Hebrew portions), and elsewhere. I have verified more 
than sixty examples in which [1sSof translates Vir. 
The Syriac word, then, according to biblical usage, 
means continual, constant. The dictionaries, covering a 
wider than biblical usage, give the meanings, stadz/zs, 
constans, assiduus, perpetuus. The meaning, then, of 
the whole phrase would be, “Our constant supply of 
bread.” 

Now, what is the value of this rendering as to the 
meaning of ἐπιούσιοο Dr. Chase in his “Lord’s 
Prayer in the Early Church”* says: “It is difficult to 
see that it represents any probable meaning of ἐπιούσιος. 
Carrying out a suggestion of Dr. Cureton, he thinks that 
the Greek word, not being understood by the translator, 
was represented “by a classical phrase about bread in the 


Old Testament, slightly changed.” Now it is true that 


*Texts and Studies. Vol. I., No. 3, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church, 
By Frederic Henry Chase, B.D. Cambiidge, 1891, pp. 42-53. 


"ὃ ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


among the great variety of actions to which the Syriac 
word is applied in the Old Testament, it is two or three 
times applied to eating bread. Mephibosheth is to “eat 
bread continually at David’s table” (2 Sam. ix. 7, 10), and 
Jehoiachin “did eat bread continually” with the king of 
Babylon (2 Kings xxv. 29; Jer. lii. 33). These, so far 
as I can discover, are the only cases of association with 
ordinary bread. ‘T'wice, also adverbially, it is used of 
the shew-bread (Num. iv. 7; 2 Chron. ii. 4), but I can 
find no example of its use as a descriptive epithet of bread. 
Even if we assume, perhaps ungraciously, that the trans- 
lator was in serious doubt, it is hard to see how his mind 
would be influenced much by any “classical phrase about 
bread in the Old Testament.” | 

Dr. Chase’s position is that ἐπιούσιος, coming as it 
does from ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, introduces tautology into the prayer, 
and is “alien to its simplicity of language.” It probably, 
then, does not belong to the earliest prayer, but is “due 
to liturgical use.” The original clause, “Our bread of 
the day give to us,” was changed to “our bread for the 
coming day,” to adapt the prayer to use at evening. This 
“working hypothesis” is presented with a modest inge- 
nuity that almost fascinates one; but it seems to me that 
if we restore to ἐπιούσιος the meaning found in the Old 
Syriac, the hypothesis is no longer needed. The tautol- 
ogy complained of arises from deriving ἐπιούσιος directly 
from ἢ ἐπιοῦσα. All other tautology is due to transla- 
tion, the disabilities of which ought not to be charged to 
the original. “Day by day our daily” is tautological, in 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 79 


a narrow sense, but “day by day our constant supply” 
is not, in any sense. Nor does the hypothesis seem to 
be securely based on liturgical need. If I should venture 
to mark out a liturgical development of the clause, I 
should by no means omit from the primary the idea of 
constant supply contained in ἐπιούσιος. To this might 
very naturally be added σήμερον for morning prayer, and 
the more general τὸ xa’ ἡμέραν for other occasions. If, 
however, ἐπιούσιος means “of the coming day,” and that 
means “of the present day,” why should σήμερον ever 
have been added? Dr. Chase’s answer is, “ There meets 
us a double rendering of the original word” (p. 47). But 
if we give to ἐπιούσιος the Old Syriac meaning, there is 
‘no room for the tautology of a “double rendering,” and 
no need of reconstructing the clause as we now find it, 
further than to acknowledge the varying traditions of 
σήμερον and τὸ xa’ ἡμέραν. Further, the coining of a 
new word, which ἐπιούσιος is acknowledged to be, seems 
likely to arise from a more pressing need than liturgical 
convenience, as, for example,from the demand of a Semitic 
original. The absence of any word for ἐπιούσιος in a 
reference to the Prayer by Ephrem Syrus is urged by 
Dr. Chase (p. 50) in favor of a form of the petition earlier 
than that of the Gospels; but an incidental reference in 
a sermon, and the omission of a seemingly unessential 
word, is surely small evidence that he was quoting from 
an earlier and superior authority. Still more inconclu- 
sive is the evidence from Tatian. The rendering adopted 
by Chase, “Give us the bread of our day,” is not sus- 


So ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


tained by Hill’s Diatessaron, which reads (p. 79), “Give 
us the sustenance [lit. power] of to-day.” Dr. Charles 
Taylor in the Guardian (Jan. 6, 1897) renders, “Give us 
the necessity of the day;” which is practically the same 
as Murdock’s Peshitto, “Our needful bread.” Instead 
of omitting ἐπιούσιος, Tatian omits ‘‘bread,” and 
emphasizes ἐπιούσιος, according to the meaning of the 
Peshitto. 

In regard to the value of this testimony I would say: 

1. The rendering is simple and clear, and betrays no 
wavering and no effort to solve an etymological difficulty. 
In this last respect it is in contrast with the Peshitto 
rendering, which means “bread of our necessity.” This 
seems like an attempt to carry out a certain theory of the 
etymology of the Greek word, viz., that it is compounded 
of ἐπί and οὐσία, the latter meaning essexce, that which 
is essential, then that which is necessary, or οὐσία 
meaning existence, as is advocated by Cremer in his Lexi- 
con, and the compound adjective meaning “ for, i. e., nec- 
essary for, existence.” The Jerusalem Syriac rendering 
seems to havea similar origin—“ bread of our abundance,” 
οὐσία having the sense of swdbstance, then wealth, abun- 
dance.* In contrast with all this, the Old Syriac gives 
a simple, intelligible word that has the appearance of be- 


ἘΠ know nothing at first hand of this Jerusalem version, but am indebted for the 
rendering given above to thé kindness of Dr. Isaac H. Hall. I cannot leave his 
name on this page without a few words of tribute to his worth,and of sorrow at his 
too early dean. Our acquaintance began over the pages of Xenophon’s Anabasis, 
when he was a boy in Norwalk, Conn. He needed little instruction in his text- 
book, for the spirit of the independent scholar was in him then. Of his achieve- 
ments in Syriac scholarship I am not qualified to speak, but I can speak warmly 
of his generous heart and his willingness to place his learning at the service of 
others. 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER SI 


ing based on known usage, or on some ground other than 
philological reasoning. 

2. The Old Syriac rendering connects, indirectly, 
ἐπιούσιος with the Hebrew Vioh. If the Septuagint 
and later Greek versions had translated this Hebrew word 
by ἐπιούσιος, no one would ever have doubted the mean- 
ing of the latter, and a world of discussion would have 
been saved. No suchtranslation is found, but we do find 
that this one Syriac version makes ἐπιούσιος the equiva- 
lent of a well known equivalent of 79}. So far as this 
goes, it serves to identify the rare Greek word witha very 
common Hebrew word. 

3. The early date of the Old Syriac version ought to 
be taken into account. Bishop Westcott places it in the 
second century. The fact that we hear only of the Gos- 
pels in this version points to a very early origin. Is it, 
then, improbable that the version reaches back into the 
influence of tradition, and that the Syriac rendering gives 
us a traditional meaning? 

4. We may, 1 think, go further, if we go sree: 
I assume that the speech of the Jews in the time of Christ 
was bilingual—Aramaic, or early Jewish Syriac, and 
Greek. This matter is fully discussed by Professor Had- 
ley in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.* For our present 
purpose it is sufficient to take the case of Paul speaking 
to the Jews in Jerusalem, as described in Acts xxii. He 
at once gained the attention of his hearers by speaking in 
Aramaic (“ Hebrew tongue”). They had evidently ex- 


*Vol. ii., p. 1590, Am. Ed. 


82 ᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 


pected to hear him speak Greek. It seems that they would 
have understood him in either language, but the Aramaic 
pleased them. ‘This may have been because the Aramaic 
was their national and domestic tongue, and they were 
more familiar with it. If this was true of the multitude 
in their chief city, it would be emphatically true of the 
dwellers in Galilee, and the country districts generally. 
It must be, therefore, that Jesus largely used the Aramaic 
in his teachings. The Lord’s Prayer certainly was 
spoken by him in Aramaic, and may also have been 
spoken in Greek. 

In regard to the bilingual character of this Prayer, two 
suppositions are possible. (1) I'wo forms of the Prayer 
may have existed side by side from the first. Then if 
ἐπιούσιος was in the Greek form, Liwdof, or some modi- 
fication of it, would very likely have been in the other; 
so that both words would come down together, and 
a very early Syriac translator of the Gospel would 
find his word supplied by tradition. (2) The other 
supposition is that the Prayer in Aramaic was strictly 
the original, but that the translation into Greek was 
made in Palestine, while both languages were familiar. 
Now a large part of the mystery of ézodctos,viz., its iso- 
lation in the language, will vanish, if we think of it as 
itself a translation. Translators are inclined to coin words, 
as the Septuagint abundantly testifies, many of the new 
words of which, but not all, lived to find place in the New 
Testament. But if the Greek word is a translation, what 
original is so probable as the one which afterwards, in 


» 


᾿Επιούσιος IN THE LORD’S PRAYER 83 


meaning if not in form, appeared in the Old Syriac? 

It is pleasant to think that the rendering “daily bread” 
is not far from the meaning of the Greek original, as in- 
terpreted by the early Syriac. It came to us, no doubt, 
from the Old Latin cot¢dianum, but this might come easily 
from the notion of continual. The affinity of “ continual” 
and “daily” is well illustrated in the parallelism of the 
Received Version of Psalm Ixxii. 15: 

“Prayer also shall be made for him continually, 
And daily [Rev. all the day long] shall he be praised.” 

With this may be fitly joined, from a modern Jewish 
Prayer-Book, the closing words of The Grace after 
Meals—* Thanks for the food wherewith thou dost feed 
and sustain us continually (the original is 7) every 
day and hour.” ; 


II 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MAKE MENTION OF THE 
DEVIL? 
‘Pica ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ tod πονηροῦ. Matt. vi. 13. 

Is τοῦ πονηροῦ masculine or neuter; and does it mean 
the Evil One, or evil? The question is an exceedingly 
difficult one—more difficult than important—but the Re- 
vised Version has forced it upon us by its translation 
“Deliver us from the Evil One.” The difficulty comes 
from the great mass of indecisive material that enters 
into the discussion. This may be seen from the debate 
that arose in England immediately after the publication 
of the Revised New Testament. The learned, and almost 
authoritative, defense of the Revision in the letters of 
Bishop Lightfoot are republished in Appendix II. of the 
third edition (1891) of his work “Ona Fresh Revision 
of the New Testament.” A more elaborate support of 
the same conclusion is found in “The Lord’s Prayer in 
the Early Church” (Camb. Univ. Press, 1891), by Dr. 
Frederic H. Chase, who devotes more than half of his 
treatise to this word. The following points, among those 
ably argued in these treatises, must be classed, I think, as 
indecisive, though relevant. 

1. The connection of thought. Probably few inter- 
preters would go as far as Alford, on the one side, and 


84 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 85 


say, “The introduction of the mention of the evil one 
would here be quite incongruous and even absurd,” and 
if an equally strong statement should be found on the 
other side we should have to ascribe both to personal bent 
rather than to definite exegetical principles. The idea of 
temptation goes well with the mention of the tempter, 
but equally well with the idea of that evil into which 
temptation may bring us. The word ῥῦσαι suggests 
rescue from a person, but is also used of deliverance from 
death (ὃς éx τηλιχούτου ϑανάτου ἐρύσατο ἡμᾶς, 2 Cor. i. 10), 
from the power of darkness (ὃς ἐρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐχ τῆς ἐξουσίας 
τοῦ σχότους, Col. i. 13), and from every evil work (ῥύσεταί 
pe 6 Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ, 2 Tim. iv. 18). 

2. The distinction between ἀπό and éx. While ἐκ 
might suggest kings rather than persons, and ἀπό the 
reverse, we find this distinction not sanctioned by 
usage. See the full and candid discussion of these -prep- 
ositions by Chase (pp. 70-84). 

3. The New Testament use of the concrete instead 
of the abstract. We may acknowledge, with Meyer, its 
general tone in this respect, without finding such a pre- 
ponderance of the concrete as will have decisive weight in 
interpreting any single word. ‘There are no philosophi- 
cal abstracts in the New Testament, but moral abstracts 
are abundant. The term morality (7%) is wanting, 
but all the elements of morality, all the moral virtues, are 
present in their usual phraseology. What is more to the 
point, we find the abstract used in cases where the con- 
crete would be expected. Twice in the twelfth chapter 


86 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


of Romans we read of good and evil where, if it were not 
for the unmistakable neuter article, we might think that 
persons were meant: ᾿Αποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, χολλώμενοι 
τῷ ἀγαϑῷ (νεῖ. 9). Is it not the evil person whom we 
abhor, and the good person to whom we cleave? But the 
article silences our wise question. Again, after reading 
(ver. 20) of the personal enemy who hungers, and thirsts, 
and feels the coals of fire on his head, we find the thought 
broadening out into that grand generalization: My νιχῶ 
ὑπὸ τοῦ xaxod, ἀλλὰ νίχα ἐν τῷ ἀγαϑῷ τὸ xaxdv (ver.21). 

One may say, This is Paul, not Matthew. Let us 
come back, then, to Matthew, and to the words of our 
Lord as recorded by him, and to the Sermon on the 
Mount. Dr. Chase says (p. 95), “The use of abstract 
terms seems alien to the spirit of the Sermon on the 
Mount; all there is concrete.” But here we read in the 
same chapter with the Lord’s Prayer such unconcrete ex- 
pressions as these: “If therefore the light that is in thee 
be darkness, how great is the darkness!” (ver. 23); “Ye 
cannot serve God and mammon” (24); “Seek ye first his 
kingdom and his righteousness” (33). Even the golden 
rule is a wonderfully broad generalization. Now it is 
the glory of the: New Testament that it is practical, sim- 
ple, direct, but surely there is no such slavery to the con- 
crete as to give even a presumption, in any single passage, 
in favor of the rendering “evil one” over “ evil.” 

4. The comparative frequency of the use in the New 
Testament of the masculine and neuter of πονηρός. Light- 
foot says (p. 280) “ὁ πονηρός occurs three or four times 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 87 


as often as τὸ πονηρόν." Taking the author’s own ex- 
amples, we find that this generalization, converted into 
its particulars, is this: The masculine is used seven times, 
and the neuter twice, and possibly four times more, for 
there are four examples doubtful (pp. 274, 275). Add to 
this the fact that the neuter xaxév is used constantly with- 
out important difference from πονηρόν. E. g., Rom. xii. 
has τὸ πονηρόν in the ninth verse, and τὸ χαχόν in the 
twenty-first, both in opposition to τὸ ἀγαϑόν. For some 
reason the masculine χαχός is seldom used in the New 
Testament. 

5. The antithesis between μὴ εἰσενέγχῃς εἰς πειρασμόν 
and ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Lightfoot says (p.289) : 
“Tf the tempter is mentioned in the second clause, then, 
and then only, has the connection ##—diddé—its proper 
force. If, on the other hand, τοῦ πονηροῦ be taken neuter, 
the strong opposition implied by these particles is no 
longer natural, for ‘temptation’ is not co-extensive with 
‘evil.’ We should rather expect in this case ‘And de- 
liver us from evil.’’’ Butis not this making too much of 
pn—ddkéd—? It is safe to say that in Greek (though 
the like would not be quite true of Latin) οὐχ (μὴ)----ἀλλά is 
used properly whenever “not—but—” could be used in 
English. And has the English mind ever felt any in- 
felicity of connection in the common rendering “ Lead us 
not into temptation, du¢ deliver us from evil”? “ Bring 
us not into solicitations to evil, but deliver us from it.” 
Certainly odx—dddd—does not require the clauses to 
be very exact counterparts. Examples of a looser antith- 


88 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


esis could easily be produced, if it werenecessary. Here 
are two from Matthew: οὐχ ἔχει δὲ ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἀλλὰ 
πρόσχαιρός ἐστὶν (xiii. 21); οὐχ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐποίησαν 
ἐν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἐδέλησαν (xvii. 12). In both these zat διὰ 
τοῦτο might have been used instead of ἀλλά, but 
surely both are right, as they are. The word “temp- 
tation” does at once suggest the tempter, but not 
necessarily the mention of the tempter. That might 
be dispensed with, as being fully implied, and the thought 
in the second clause advanced and broadened to deliver- 
ance from all the forms and power of sin which the temp- 
ter promotes. 

6. The omission by Luke of the clause beginning with 
ἀλλά. Whether τοῦ πονηροῦ be masculine or neuter, he 
might omit this clause as practically involved in the pre- 
ceding. The neuter does not make the second clause an 
independent petition. Luke’s petition is virtually: “ De- 
liver us from temptation to evil,” and thus his record in- 
volves abridgment, but not serious curtailment. Luke 
gives us “Thy kingdom come,” and omits “ Thy will be 
done, as in heaven, so on earth.” The petition omitted 
may be called merely an expansion of the preceding, but 
it is nearer being an independent petition than “ Deliver 
us from evil.” 

7. A possible reference to the temptation of Christ in 
the wilderness. Dr. Chase says (p. 104): “ Every clause 
of the Prayer, I believe, stands forth with greater sharp- 
ness and clearness of meaning when seen in the light of 
the Lord’s Temptation.” A general criticism of Dr. 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 89g 


Chase’s most thorough and valuable discussion would be 
that he inclines to connect the phraseology of the Prayer 
with almost everything that is important in the New 
Testament. He is not alone, however, in associating 
τοῦ πονηροῦ with the temptation. Lightfoot says (p. 290): 
“Nor is it an insignificant fact that, only two chapters 
before, St. Matthew has recorded how the Author of this 
prayer found himself face to face with temptation (iv. 1, 
3), and was delivered from the Evil One.” But this same 
St. Matthew in recording, “ only two chapters before,” the © 
temptation calls the tempter once 6 πειράξων (verse 3), four 
times 6 διάβολος (verses 1, 5, 8, 11}, and not once ὁ 
πονηρός, “the evil one.” For we must not forget that the 
question is not merely whether Jesus was thinking of the 
Tempter in the wilderness, a question too deep for us, 
but whether Matthew’s verbal usage favors the meaning 
‘*Evil One.’? Why should he not use one of the two 
words employed “only two chapters before”? 

8. The use of πονηροῦ instead of some other word for 
evil. Itis claimed that if πονηροῦ means moral evil, a 
better word could have been chosen, as ἁμαρτία, πονηρία, 
ἀνομία. It is not always possible to show why a 
writer or speaker does not choose some different word. 
Nor is it necessary to prove that he chooses the best word. 
But in this case it is easy to see that ἁμαρτία would fail 
to carry the suggestion of harm and loss which τὸ 
πονηρόν does, and that ἀνομία is more restricted in mean- 
ing. In regard to πονηρία, which Matthew uses but once, 


or xaxta, these also, as abstracts, are less suggestive of 


90 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


the evil fruits of wickedness than τὸ πονηρόν. The 
latter would be more likely, I think, to be used by one 
who felt and feared the curse of sin. Nor should it be 
forgotten that τὸ πονηρόν is broad enough to embrace 
not only all evil conduct, but all evil influences, and all 
evil Ones. 

9. The early versions, particularly the Latin and 
Syriac. In addition to the fact that no version, early or 
late, is authoritative, we find that the Latin, both Old 
Latin and Vulgate, simply adopts the ambiguity of the 
Greek—* Libera nos a malo.” It is true that in the First 
Epistle of John whenever πονηρός refers to Satan it is 
translated “ malignus,” but this cannot be made the rule. — 
Matt. xiii. 19 has “ Venit malus et rapit quod seminatum 
est.” At first glance, the Syriac, both Curetonian and 
Peshitto, seems to decide in favor of “Evil One,” for 
the word is masculine; but when we remember that the 
Syriac, like the other Semitic languages, has no neuter 
gender, and sometimes uses the masculine for abstracts, 
this evidence is considerably weakened. The late Dr. 
Isaac H. Hall, a recognized authority in Syriac scholar- 
ship, wrote to me in 1891: “ As to the Peshitto, perhaps 
different people would argue differently from the same 
data. I think, however, that it favors the rendering 
‘evil.’ Adjectives used as abstract nouns prefer the femi- 
nine form, both where the Latin uses the neuter plural 
and neuter singular, but this is by no means the universal 
usage. It prevails rather in extra-biblical and later Syriac. 
The masculine is common enough for abstracts of every 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? ΟἹ 


sort. The Lord’s Prayer has the masculine, which is 
used in very many places in the Peshitto for the neuter, 
even in rendering other words than πονηρόν. So far as I 
have read Syriac, the writers generally—lI refer to allu- 
sions only—look upon the phrase as ‘evil,’ not ‘the evil 
one.’ ” 

10. The opinions and diction of the Greek Fathers. 
It cannot be disputed that these Fathers interpreted τοῦ 
πονηροῦ as the Evil One, Satan. Says Lightfoot (p. 307): 
“ Among Greek writers there is, so far as I have observed, 
absolute unanimity on this point. They do not even be- 
tray the slightest suspicion that any other interpretation 
is possible.” Again (p. 319): “To sum up; the earliest 
Latin Father [ this ismuch more effective than to say,“ The 
erratic Tertullian” |,and the earliest Greek Father of whose 
opinions we have any knowledge, both take τοῦ πονηροῦ 
masculine.* The masculine rendering seems to have been 
adopted universally by the Greek Fathers. At least no 
authority, even of a late date, has been produced for the 
neuter. Inthe Latin Church the earliest distinct testi- 
mony for the neuter is St. Augustine, at the end of the 
fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. From that 
time forward the neuter gained ground in the Western 
Church till it altogether supplanted the masculine.” Again 
(Ρ. 314): “With Augustine, however, a new era begins. 
The voice of the original Greek has ceased to be heard, 
or at least to be heard by an ear familiar with its idiom; 


*Yet Clemens Romanus prays (Corinthians, 60) ῥυσϑῆναι ἀπὸ πάσης 
ἁμαρτίας, in language that seems to echo the Lord’s Prayer. So Dr. Charles 
Taylor in the Guardian, Jan. 6, 1897. 


92 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


and, notwithstanding his spiritual insight, the loss here, 
as elsewhere, is very perceptible.” It is further claimed, 
though not, I think, by Lightfoot, that the usage and 
diction of the Greek Fathers are evidence, independent of 
their interpretation, in favor of the masculine. In other 
words, they constantly refer to Satan as “the evil one” in 
other connections than in the Lord’s Prayer,and are there- 
fore independent witnesses to the linguistic usage. 

In regard to the exegesis of the early Fathers it is need- 
less to bring proof that in judgment and acumen they 
are inferior to modern interpreters and to some of the 
later Fathers. The only points worth considering are 
whether their nearness to apostolic times, or their inti- 
mate knowledge of Greek and “an ear familiar with its 
idiom,” makes them reliable guides. On this last point 
it is enough to say that the gender of rod πονηροῦ is not a 
question of Greek idiom. . Masculine and neuter are both 
equally good Greek. Also, the logical connection cannot 
be determined by linguistic evidence. To say that St. 
Augustine had lost the delicate sense of Greek idiom— 
but he was familiar with Greek—I cannot think to be 
important. Indeed, an imperfect acquaintance with Greek 
would have inclined him to the masculine because of the 
un-Latin-like idiom of the article with the neuter. The 
Vulgate has the ambiguous rendering “a malo.” A poor 
Greek scholar would have put it—as Beza, who was not 
a poor Greek scholar, did, following the Greek Fathers, — 
“ab illo malo.” It simply cannot be that the Fathers 
favored the masculine on account of Greek idiom. 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 93 


As to the independent value of the diction of the Fa- 
thers, it might be said that their usage simply grew out of 
their exegesis, but I willnot insist on this. Let it stand 
that both in exegesis and in general usage the Greek 
Fathers unequivocally favor the mascpline. Let us re- 
frain too from thinking that their unanimity was owing 
to the overwhelming influence of Origen. Admitting all 
that is claimed in regard to their interpretation, their 
usage, and their opportunities of traditional light from 
the primitive Christian years, we have yet to set down 
two important facts. 

First, the diction of the Fathers in the use of πονηρός 
is different from that of the New Testament. A strik- 
ing illustration of this is found in the passage quoted by 
Bishop Lightfoot (p. 307) from the Clementine Homilies. 
In the dialogue between Simon the Samaritan and St. 
Peter (Hom. xix. 2) the question is sharply raised 
whether Satan really exists. I translate, restoring the 
lines omitted by the Bishop. Peter says: “I acknowl- 
edge that the Evil One exists, because the Master, who 
spoke the truth in everything, often said that he existed. 
At the outset he acknowledges that for forty days he by 
word of mouth tempted him. And elsewhere I know 
that he said: ‘If Satan cast out Satan he is divided against 
himself; how, then, can his kingdom stand?’ Also he 
declared that he saw the Evil One as lightning fall from 
heaven. And in another place he said: ‘He that sowed 
the bad seed is the devil.’ And again: ‘Give no occa- 
sion to the Evil One.’ Further, by way of counsel he 


94 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


said: ‘Let your language be Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay, but 
what is more than these is from the Evil One.’ Further, 
in the Prayer which he handed down we have it said, 
‘Deliver us from the Evil One.’ And in another place 
he pledged himself to say to the ungodly: ‘Depart into 
the outer darkness, which the Father prepared for the 
devil and his angels.’ And, not to prolong what I have 
to say, I know that my Master often said that the Evil 
One exists.”* These few lines contain six instances of 
the masculine πονηρός applied to Satan. What is more, 
there are two quotations from the New Testament in 
which 6 πονηρός ts substituted for the New Testament 
words. The passage in Luke (x. 18), “I beheld Satan 
fall as lightning from heaven,” appears thus: ‘Ewpaxey τὸν 
πονηρὸν ὡς ἀστραπὴν πεσόντας, A passage from Paul (Eph. 
iv. 27)—-we need not blame this Father, whoever he was, 
for forgetting that Paul said it instead of Jesus—“ Neither 
give place to the devil,” is given, almost unrecognizable, 
it is true, Mj δότε πρόφασιν τῷ πονηρῷ. ἡ In two other 
quotations Σατανᾶς and διάβολος remain unchanged. We 
can imagine what a transformation would have been 
wrought in Matthew’s record of the Temptation and else- 
where, if this writer had taken the place of the first evan- 
gelist. It should be added that the neuter τὸ πονηρόν is 
found at least twice in the same Homily (chap. 20). 

The second important fact is one of theological opinion, 
viz., that the Fathers, in their thinking, gave more promi- 


*Ed. Dressel, p. 372. 


tDresselin his note says: ‘‘Testimonium forsan Ebionitici evangelii, affine 
dicto apostolico.”’ 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 95 


nence to Satan than the New Testament does. This is 
shown first by the theory of the atonement held by even 
so early a Father as Irenezus. Imagine Peter and Paul 
preaching and writing that the sufferings and death of 
Christ were a ransom paid to the devil for our release. 
Says Shedd, speaking of the writings of the first three 
centuries, “It is very plain that in seizing so rankly, as 
the theological mind of this age did, upon those few texts 
in which the connection and relations of Satan with the 
work of Christ are spoken of, and allowing them to 
eclipse those far more numerous passages in which the 
Redeemer’s work is exhibited in its reference to the be- 
ing and attributes of God, it was liable to a one-sided con- 
struction of the doctrine.” Again, “The claims of God 
and of the attribute of justice were thrown too much into 
the background by those of Satan.”* 

The patristic theory of the atonement is sufficient to 
prove the deviation of the Fathers from the sobriety and 
truth of our Lord and his apostles. But we may put be- 
side this the great importance attached to exorcism. Evil 
spirits, subjects of “the evil one,” must be cast out by 
rites and ceremonies. Early in the third century exor- 
cism began to be connected with baptism, and thus vir- 
tually became a sacrament of the church. 

Now all this subserviency to Satan seemed to the early 
Fathers genuine Christianity; but we see it to be exag- 
geration and perversion. And is it not plain that minds 
breathing such a theological atmosphere as they did would 


*‘*History of Christian Doctrine,’’ Vol. ii., pp. 215, 266. 


96 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


inevitably interpret ambiguous passages of the New Tes- 
tament so as to magnify the agency of Satan? Why then 
should we follow their guidance under the notion that 
somehow “the voice of the original Greek” taught them 
the true meaning? 

Enough of indecisive considerations. Some will 
perhaps see in them a cumulative result of slight 
probabilities in favor of one or the other of the dis- 
puted renderings, but I am sure that most students of the 
subject will say that it is hopeless to look for a decision 
on these indeterminate grounds. It seems to me, how- 
ever, that there is some hope of a decision, in the answer 
to this simple question, too much neglected in this dis- 
cussion, viz., Was 6 πονηρός the usual term to designate 
the devil? If not, then we should not expect to find it in 
such a formula of devotion as the Lord’s Prayer. Now 
the moment this question is raised, it answers itself in the 
mind of one who is familiar with the New Testament. 
Such a one will feel, without resorting to exegetical sta- 
tistics—often a poor resort—how changed the gospel 
narrative would be if certain well-remembered passages 
should read thus: “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit 
into the wilderness to be tempted of the evz/ one,” “ And 
when the evz/ ome came to him, he said, If thou be the 
Son of God,” etc.; “Then the evz/ one leaveth him, 
and behold angels came;” “The enemy that sowed them 
[ the tares ] is the evz/ one,” “Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the evzl ome and his 
angels ;” “How can the evz/ ove cast out the evdl one?” 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 9} 


“Then entered the evil one into Judas;” “Ye are of 
your father, the evél one,” “The evil one cometh and 
hath nothing in me”! In these and in more than a score 
of other passages in the Gospels, which strike one as con- 
taining the principal references to the Devil, the original 
words are διάβολος, Σατανᾶς, ὁ πειράξων, ἄρχων τοῦ χόσμου. 
Outside of the Gospels the usual words are διάβολος and 
Σατανᾶς. 

It is not denied that sometimes 6 πονηρός means the 
Devil. No one supposes that it always does. An ex- 
ample both of the masculine, denoting a man, and of the 
neuter abstract is in Luke vi. 45: 6 πονηρὸς é τοῦ πονηροῦ 
[[ϑησαυροῦ | προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν. So in 1 Cor. v. 13, ’E€dpare 
τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, rendered in the Revision, “ Put 
away the wicked man from among yourselves.” Also in 
Matt. v. 39, the Revision reads, “ Resist not him that is 
evil” (τῷ πονηρῷ). It would hardly do to translate “ Resist 
not the evil one,” with the ἀντέστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ, χαὶ 
φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν of James iv. 7 before us. 

How many are the clear and certain cases of ὁ πον- 
ἡρός meaning Satan? If we set aside those passages in 
which “evil” finds a place inthe margin of the Revision 
(Matt. v. 37; vi. 13; John xvii. 15; 2 Thess. iii. 3), we 
have, as claimed, the following: Matt. xiii. 19, 38; Eph. 
vi. 16; 1 John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19. Of these, 
Matt. xiii. 38 is, Ὁ δὲ ἀγρός ἐστιν 6 χόσμος" τὸ δὲ χαλὸν σπέρμα, 
οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας" τὰ δὲ ξιξάνιά εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πον- 
npod. Probably the reason why “evil” was not put in the 
margin was that the common version had “ children of the 


98 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


wicked one,” there being, therefore, no occasion for mar- 
ginal concession or conciliation; but is it not true, as 
Cremer suggests, that the parallel phrase, υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας, 
requires the rendering “sons of evil”? It should be noted 
that in the words immediately following, the Devil is 
mentioned by his usual name, and is said to be the sower 
of the tares and the enemy of him who sowed the good 
seed. Thus we have two antitheses—the Lord and Satan, 
good men and evil men; and the antithesis is sharper and © 
much more natural with a single mention of Satan as the 
antagonist of Jesus. The Hebraism “sons of evil” would 
be as natural as “son of hell” (Matt. xxiii. 15); “sons of 
disobedience” (Eph. v. 6); and the “son of worthless- 
ness [ Belial ]” of the Old Testament. 
Another passage in the above list is 1 John v. 19, 0 
χόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται, rendered in the Revision “ the 
whole world lieth in the evil one,” with no “evil” in the 
alternative margin. But does it not require a strong 
effort to suppress the sense of incongruity in the render- 
ing “lieth in the evil one,” when “in evil” is not only 
grammatical, but harmonizes fully with “evil one” men- 
tioned in the previous verse? Compare the τοῦ πονηροῦ 
and πονηρά of iii. 12. Such expressions as “ Abide zz 
me;” “them which are zz Christ Jesus;” “one body 
in Christ;” “fallen asleep zz Christ;” “life hid with 
Christ zz God;” “We are zz him that is true” (ver. 20)— 
expressions so numerous in the New Testament, espe- 
cially in John, as in the allegory of the vine, imply an all- 
pervading presence which the Scriptures nowhere ascribe 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 99 


to the Devil, leader of all evil agents and agencies though 
he be. The “in” of such profound phraseology is very 
different from the ἐν instrumental of Matt. xii. 24, “ This 
man doth not cast out devils, but in Beelzebub the prince 
of the devils.” 

I will venture, then, to subtract two from the list given 
above, leaving six in the whole New Testament, and 
one only in the four Gospels (Matt. xiii. 19). That one 
is indisputable, because assured by the parallel passages 
in Mark and Luke. In the parable of the sower, where 
Matthew says: "ἔρχεται 6 πονηρὸς χαὶ ἁρπάζει τὸ ἐσπαρμένον 5” 
Mark says: "ἔρχεναι 6 Σατανᾶς (iv. 15); Luke says: ἔρχεται 
ὁ διάβολος (viii. 12). If we had a similar parallelism in the 
Lord’s Prayer, there would be no need of discussion. 
The most that we can say, in comparing the evangelists, 
is that Mark never uses ὁ “πονηρός at all, and Luke 
never uses 6 πονηρός for Satan, but always διάβολος or 
Satavas,and that he once uses the neuter τὸ πονηρόν, and 
that too in his Sermon on the Mount. Compare Luke 
vi. 45 with Matt. vii. 18. But while spending our time 
in debating whether Satan is called “the evil one” just 
seven times, or six, or five, we are apt to forget that 
more than seventy times he is called by other names, 
almost always Satan or Devil. All the undoubted exam- 
ples of the term “evil one” except two are in the First 
Epistle of John. In the Gospels there is but one, viz., Matt. 
xiii. 19, this being given by only one of the three report- 
ing evangelists. If we were not in a serious discussion, 
I should be tempted to call it one-third of an example, 


100 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


because probably,either by varying tradition or by delib- 
erate choice of the writers, the three words came from 
the same Aramaic source. Now while it is posszdle that 
this rare usage should be incorporated into such a formula 
as the Lord’s Prayer, it seems to me extremely improb- 
able. The presumption is strongly against it. 

This strong presumption is confirmed, and made almost 
a certainty, by Old Testament usage. The Septua- 
gint has frequent use of πονηρόν and χαχόν, with, and 
sometimes without, the article, to denote evil in general. 
The first reference to evil is in Gen. ii. 9---τὸ ξύλον τοῦ 
εἰδέναι γνωστὸν xahod χαὶ πονηροῦ. In Deut. iv. 25, we read: 
ἐὰν ποιήσητε τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον χυρίου, and this language is so 
reiterated in the books that follow, that doing “evil in 
the sight of the Lord” rings like a sad refrain all through 
the history. The Psalms and prophets continue the 
same usage. David’s lament in the penitential Psalm—oo? 
μόνῳ ἥμαρτον, xat τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σοὺ ἐποίησα (li. 4. (1.6))— 
and Isaiah’s οὐαὶ of λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλόν (v. 20) are exam- 
ples. We base no argument on the fact that Satan is 
never called “the evil one” in the Old Testament. We 
do not place Old Testament usage on a level with that of 
the New Testament on this point. Whatever may be the 
reason, the doctrine of Satan is mostly a New Testament 
doctrine, but the notion of evil in general is common and 
impressive in the Old Testament, and is very often ex- 
pressed in the Septuagint by τὸ πονηρόν. The Old Testa- 
ment all bears one way on the question before us. We 
would not limit all the words of our Lord to Old Testa- 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 101 


ment meanings, but his hearers. were familiar with the 
idea of evil itself as a dreadful reality. It was a part of 
their biblical training, and we may well believe that divine 
wisdom did not overlook this in giving form to that com- 
prehensive guide to prayer. Indeed, if wedo not greatly 
overestimate the influence of the Old Testament on the 
minds of serious Jews, we may say that, unless the lan- 
guage employed by our Lord was decisively limited to an 
evil Jerson, his hearers would inevitably understand it of 
evil itself. In all this we do not forget that the Septua- 
gint is a translation, and that a large part of the Gospels 
is virtually the same. The argument from the Old Testa- 
ment is from the idea of evil, and not from any particu- 
lar word to express it. It may be added, however, that 
in the Hebrew Old Testament the article is almost always 
used with Y" (ΠῚ) to express “evil” substantively— 
that which is evil. Still further, of all the Evangelists, 
Matthew—Luke’s genuine text does not contain the peti- 
tion—is most under the influence of Old Testament ideas, 
as is shown by the great number of his citations, 

The force of all this is not much weakened by the fact 
that Satan is not often spoken of by any name in the Old 
Testament, nor by the greater prominence given to the 
agency of Satan in later times. Lightfoot says (p. 282): 
“ The Septuagint version of the Old Testament was made 
two or three centuries before the Gospels were written. 
This interval was a period of constant and rapid develop- 
ment. Theological nomenclature moved forward with 
the movement of the ages. Terms wholly unknown at 


102 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


the beginning of this period were in everybody’s mouth 
at the end.” But the influence of the Old Testament on 
the minds of Christ’s hearers in regard to “evil” did not 
depend on the frequency or infrequency of the mention of 
Satan, or on the diction of the Septuagint, but on the 
positive and ever-present power of those writings which 
were “read in the synagogues every Sabbath,” and taught 
in every devout family. No doubt, new terms arose, 
but they must have arisen slowly, and have supplanted 
others still more slowly, and if any term ever clearly had 
the field to express wicked conduct, it was in our Savior’s 
time, “evil,” in whatever language it may have been 
clothed; while “evil one” was, it is true, beginning to 
be used occasionally as a name of the Devil. 

In this connection I ought, perhaps, to refer to the 
Talmud, the knowledge of which, it has been said, is 
mostly disseminated by quoting from quotations. The 
Talmud might have been put with emphasis in the list 
of our indecisive sources of evidence; for it contains the 
petitions “ Deliver us from evil” and “Deliver us from 
Satan,” ahd a special search was rewarded by the dis- 
covery of three passages in which Satan was called the 
Wicked One. These may be found on pages 285, 286, 
in Lightfoot’s Appendix II. I will make short work of 
the immense and almost inaccessible Talmud, because I 
know so little about it, but I have read carefully a little 
volume, the orthodox Jewish Prayer-book, and perhaps 
its ancient prayers represent the devotions of the time of 
Christ as correctly as the Talmud, which in its earliest. 


DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 103 


written portions is two centuries after Christ. Among 
these ancient prayers, none of which make mention of the 
evil one, we find in the Morning Service the following: 
“© Lord, have pity on thy people Israel, and deliver us 
from all evil.”* “ Lead us not into the power of sin, trans- 
gressions, iniquity, temptation, or contempt. Suffer not 
the evil imagination to have dominion over us; and re- 
move far from us evil men and wicked associates and 
works.” But the Talmud, it seems, adds to such prayers 
as these the petition: “Deliver us from Satan.” Now, 
if the question were, Did the ancient Jews pray to be 
delivered from Satan or from evil? then the Talmud 
would answer, They prayed for deliverance from Jdoth. 
After all, I do not believe that the Talmud has very much 
to do with the question what the Lord’s Prayer means. 
If it gave us the exact petition “ Deliver us from the evil 
one,” how much would its evidence be worth against that 
derived from the Old Testament? 

Our conclusion, then, is that in the Lord’s Prayer we 
are taught to say, “ Deliver us from evil”—a petition that 
reaches to the lowest depths of weak, sinful human nature. 
If it could be shown that “ evil one” was a common desig- 
nation of the Devil, even then there would be no prepon- 
derance in favor of the rendering, “ Deliver us from the 
evil one.” The case would be simply evenly balanced so 
far as the language itself is concerned; and the weight of 


Ἔν "21 2037, which may be rendered in Greek, ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ 
παντὸς πονηροῦ. Compare Ps. cxxi, (cxx.) 7, ἄύριος guidEai σε ἀπὸ 


παντὸς χαχοῦ. 


104 DOES THE LORD’S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 


evidence from the Old Testament would be decisive. But 
when we think how seldom the name “ evil one” was ap- 
plied to Satan, and that this ought to have considerable 
weight in every instance of ambiguity, and especial 
weight in interpreting a prayer remarkable for its sim- 
plicity and directness,then our conclusion seems well-nig 

certain. ; 


IV 


DOES ἡλιχία IN MATTHEW AND LUKE, MEAN STATURE 
OR AGE? 


Tig δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν μεριμνῶν δύναται προσϑεῖναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλιχίαν 
αὐτοῦ πῆχυν ἕνα; Matt. vi. 22. Compare Luke xii. 25. 


IN classical usage the meaning “stature” is rare. The 
best lexicons refer us to only five examples, and two of 
these are erroneous. In Plutarch, a contemporary of 
John, there seems to be not a single example, though he 
uses ἡλιχέα many times. There is one clear case in 
Herodotus (iii., 16). After describing the indignities in- 
flicted on the dead body of Amasis by Cambyses, he says 
that the Egyptians asserted that it was not Amasis but a 
certain Egyptian of the same stature—éZywy τὴν αὐτὴν 
ἡλιχίην Apdot. Demosthenes furnishes another example in 
one of the “testimonies” appended to his oration “ Ad- 
versus Beotum” (1024). In speaking of his daughter the 
witness says that if you look at her stature—rijy δ᾽ ἡλιχέαν αὐτῆς 
ἄν (énte—you would suppose her to be his sister. Again, 
Lucian in his True History—the ancient Gulliver’s Trav- 
els—speaks of men, though he admits it to be zapado€éra- 
tov, Of about half-furlong statures—jyroradiaioug τὰς 
ἡλιχίας. 

The Septuagint, Canon and Apocrypha, has but one 
example of “stature” (Ezek. xiii. 18), and that one we 

105 


106 “Hitxta IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 


could not be sure of, if we did not know the original 
Hebrew. 

Coming to the New Testament, where ἡλιχέα is used 
eight times, one of these a mere repetition (John ix. 23), 
we find but one case that is not disputed—the ἡλιχία of 
Zaccheus—although Eph. iv. 13 seems to me almost as 
clear. Paul had just been speaking of “the budding up 
of the body of Christ,” and he adds, “till we all attain 

unto a full-grown man, of the stature (ἡλιχέας) 
of the fullness of Christ.” Luke ii. 52 may fairly be 
considered doubtful, especially on account of the verb 
προέχοπτεν, Which would not go so well with “stature” as 
with “maturity of age.” This leaves two cases of the un- 
disputed meaning “age,” that of the blind man healed, 
who was “ofage” (John ix. 21, 23), and Sarah, who 
was “past age” (Heb. xi. 11). 

Usage, then, by a majority vote favors the meaning 
“age,” but there are examples enough of the meaning 
“stature” to allow the passages before us to be settled 
purely by connection of thought. Which best suits the 
immediate and surrounding context? There is no doubt 
that the first impression is in favor of applying “cubit” 
to stature. The older commentators seem to have fol- 
lowed this, and I think it is a case where first impressions 
should rule. Bengel makes short work of the other view— 
“Hanc [aetatem] nemo cubitis metitur” (note on Luke 
xii. 25). It must be admitted that the most eminent 
modern commentators have abandoned this first impres- 
sion. Tholuck in his “Sermon on the Mount” refers to 


‘Hiixia IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 107 


Ps. xxxix. 5, Job ix. 25, Acts xiii. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 7, in 
favor of “age,” and, in extra-Biblical Greek, to Dioge- 
nianus, Alceus and Mimnermus. Meyer gives the first 
and last of these, but Alford gives all except Acts xiii. 
25, including the misprint in Tholuck for Diogenianus. 
With all respect for these distinguished names, it must 
be said that such parallel references are utterly mislead- 
ing, and tend to throw discredit on all usage-study; for 
(1) the “ hand-breadth” of the Psalm, the “ finger-breadth” 
of Alceus, and the “cubit-time” (x7yucov χρόνον) of 
Mimnermus are obvious poetic diction, and one of the 
elementary principles of usage-study is not to mix and 
confound poetry and prose. (2) Still more unfit is the 
comparison with Job’s saying, “My days are swifter 
than a post,” and the reference to δρόμος in the Acts 
and 2 Tim. (“John was fulfilling his course,” “1 have 
finished my course”). What is the use of studying 
usage at all, if we must put together such incongruous 
notions on the general ground, of course indisputable, 
that words of space are often applied to time? 

If, then, the joining of cubit to age is unsupported by 
usage, how is it about the context? Meyer and Alford 
insist that the connection demands “age”; “ for,” says the 
latter, “the object of food and clothing is not to exlarge 
the body, but to prolong life.” Let us look at verses 25- 
28. “Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, 
or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye 
shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the 
body than the raiment? Behold the birds of the heaven 


108 “Ηλιχία IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 


- your heavenly Father feedeth them. . . . 
Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto 
his stature? And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? 
Consider the lilies of the field,” etc. Here are mentioned 
two objects of anxiety, food and clothing—food for the 
life, and clothing for the body. Life is more than food, 
and the body than raiment. The Father who gives life 
will give its needful food, and he who gives the body will 
give its needed clothing. There are two pairs, life and 
food, body and raiment. Now the discussion of the first 
pair closes, I think, with the 26th verse, “ Are not ye of 
much more value than they?” Next begins (and the δέ 
after τίς favorsthis) the second pair, body and raiment. 
The 27th verse is a fit opening for this, but is it a fitting 
close for the preceding? ‘The body is God’s gift, and 
he will provide clothing for it. He gives it as it is, and 
we cannot change its stature by our anxiety. No more need 
is there of our being anxious about its clothing. 

In Luke (xii. 22-29) we find the same two pairs, and 
the verse about the cubit serves equally well for an intro- 
duction to the second. Instead of Matthew’s χαὶ περὶ 
ἐνδύματος τί μεριμνᾶτε ; where xaf, according to its New 
Testament inclusiveness, nearly equals οὖν, Luke has 
εἰ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασϑε, τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μεριμνᾶτε ; 
Omitting the word for clothing, he implies it in“ the rest,” 
and goes on, like Matthew, with the beautiful parable- 
argument from the lilies. His εἰ οὖν fastens the connec- 
tion of the “cubit” verse to the following instead of the 
preceding. Meyer and Alford find an objection to the 


“Πλιχία IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 109 


meaning “stature” in the word ἐλάχιστον, the latter Say- 
ing that a cubit would be “a very large increase.” But 
why emphasize πῆχυν after this mechanical fashion? 
Our Savior’s argument would have been the same if he 
had said “inch” or “hair-breadth.” Plainly, “cubit” 
was used as acommon unit of measure. The substance 
of the thought was that man cannot change the stature 
that God has given him. Also difference in height of 
body is a very small matter (ἐλάχιστον) compared with the 
care of the body, whether short or tall. Further, it may 
be that οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον is to be taken adverbially—* you are 
able not even in the least” to increase the stature. 
Another objection is drawn from the grotesqueness of 
even suggesting a cubit’s increase in stature. Bengel is 
not disturbed by this; he says, “ut fiat giganti similis.” 
Meyer considers the notion “sehr unpassend.” So it 
might be, if the language implied the possible desirable- 
ness of adding a cubit to αὐ men’s stature. But the ab- 
surdity vanishes when we think of the differences in 
men’s height, and that while some would not care to be 
taller, others might. The very form of the question sug- 
gests individuals: “Which of you?” Our Savior may 
have had among his hearers a Saul, of whom it is said, 
“From his shoulders and upward he was taller than any 
of the people” (1 Sam. ix. 2.), and a Zaccheus, whom 
all the world knows to have been “little of stature” (τῇ 
ἡλικίᾳ pixods—Luke xix. 3). We do not know the exact 
height of either, but there must have been a difference of 
more than acubit. -One naturally thinks of the pet regi- 


110 ‘Hitxta IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 


ment of Frederick William I. of Prussia,in which some of 
the men were seven feet tall, while the statement is made 
that the requirement for the Japanese army is only 4 feet 
11. If something more accurate is wanted, it can be 
found in gymnasium records; but almost any one, with- 
out going to formal records, can find among his acquaint- 
ances men who are 6 feet 4, and others under 5 feet. All 
this would not be worth the while except to answer an ob-. 
jection, for, as has been said already, the cubit was men- 
tioned as a common unit of measure,—as we use foot and 
inch—and not for mathematical exactness. 

Let it be added here that the objections are not all on 
one side. Besides the objection to “age” from the incon- 
gruity of the connection with “cubit,” it may be said 
that one can by care prolong his life. The suggestion 
that he cannot, so fixed are the limits of life by God’s 
purpose, gives a prominence to Divine foreordination 
that is out of harmony with the occasion, with the Ser- 
mon on the Mount, and with the general teaching of 
Jesus. 

We may come back, then, with confidence to our 
first impression in favor of the rendering “stature.” <A 
careful examination of the passage confirms the verdict of 
plain common sense, the judgment of the older commen- 
tators, and the rendering of the oldest versions, viz., the 
Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and, if we may trust a trans- 
lation of a translation, the Gospel-harmony of Tatian. 


V 


TO THE SLEEPING DISCIPLES 


Καϑεύδετε τὸ λοιπὸν xa ἀναπαύεσϑες. Mark xiv. 41. 


_Compare Matt. xxvi. 45, 46; Luke xxii. 45, 46. 


Ir has been much discussed whether Jesus used this 
language in earnest, or in irony, as if saying, “Sleep on, 
if you can in such an hour as this.” If used in earnest, 
how could he say immediately, “ Arise, let us be going”? 
Perhaps all that is needed is to read the whole narrative 
of the Agony in the garden, with the eyes of the imagi- 
nation wide open. Three times Jesus went a short dis- 
tance from the three disciples, that he might endure the 
agony alone, yet not far from sympathy. Twice he re- 
turned and awoke them from a sleep which he kindly ex- 
cused. He returns the third time. Does he awake them 
again? Notatonce. Looking with eyes of pity on the 
forlorn “o’erwatched” friends, he speaks a few tender 
words to ears that do not hear. It is more a soliloquy. 
“Sleep henceforth and take rest: it is enough: the hour 
is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands 
of sinners.” The loving Heart anticipates their relief 
from the dreadful strain. He speaks, but they do not 
hear, until with sharp tones of urgent necessity he cries 


[Il 


112 TO THE SLEEPING DISCIPLES 


out, “ Arise, let us be going,” and, as they rouse them- 
selves to obey, he repeats in substance what he had 
already said unheard, “ Behold, he that betrayeth me is at 


hand.” 


VI 
DEMONS 


Κύριε, καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια ὑποτάσσεται ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί cov. 


—Luke x. 17. 


WHAT were demons,or devils,as our versions call them? 
Were they real or imaginary? These questions annoy 
exegesis without being properly in its sphere. Exegesis 
says: “They were, in the opinion of the times, malig- 
nant spirits controlling and perverting men’s minds, and 
making them what we now call crazy.” Present opinion 
considers their victims to be simply mentally diseased. 
But this change of opinion need not trouble any reader 
of the New Testament when he comes to the accounts of 
demoniacal possession. The people of that day had their 
theory and we have ours, and how much will the men of 
the coming centuries care for either? For how much 
do we know absolutely of mental disease, or affections 
of the brain? Suppose some one should extend the germ- 
theory of disease so as to cover all brain-ailments, and 
people the head with a legion of living pests, could the 
nineteenth, or twentieth, century in the West say much in 
scorn of the first century in the East? Nor in fact have 
we altogether given up its way of speaking, for we some- 
times say a man is “possessed.” At any rate the notion 
of devils ina human being is respectable enough to be 


113 


114 DEMONS 


read of without distress or disgust, as an ancient theory 
of frenzy or madness. Exegesis calmly acknowledges 
that there was no other way to speak of the matter at that 
time and in that place. Jesus himself not only assumed 
human nature, but entered into the mind of the times. 
There is no need of explaining his words by an “accom- 
modation theory” of adapting his language to the ignor- 
ance of his hearers. Is it not utterly idle to set up a du- 
plex analysis of the intellectual experience of the God- 
man? The incarnation,of itself, was an all-inclusive “ ac- 
commodation” to our earthly life. 


VII 
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND gihéw 


ΠΥ ie; . . . gthice. . . « ἀγαπᾷς με; . . 
φιλῶ os. . . « φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήϑη 6 Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ 
τὸ τρέτον' φιλεῖς με; χαὶ λέγει αὐτῷ" χύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ 
γινώσχεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. John xxi. 15-17. 

It is to be expected that in discussing these two words 
one will begin by quoting from Trench’s “Synonyms of 
the New Testament.” He says (I. 67, Am. Ed.) that 
φιλέω (amo) “is more instinctive, is more of the feel- 
ings, implies more passion,” while ἀγαπάω (diligo) indi- 
cates esteem, choice, a sense of what is fit and due its 
object. He dwells on John xxi. 15-17 as illustrating the 
difference. ’Ayaz@s on the Lord’s lips “sounds too cold” 
to satisfy Peter, and at last Jesus gratifies him by adopt- 
ing his own word, φιλεῖς. 

President Woolsey, in an article of the greatest 
value in the Andover Review (Aug., 1885), dissents 
from this interpretation of the dialogue, while ac- 
knowledging the correctness of Trench’s view in 
general. He considers it “more probable that Peter 
felt his love to Christ to be too human, too much like a 
friend’s love to a friend,” to deserve the word ἀγαπάω. 

In the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1889, President Bal- 
lantine gives a searching criticism to the views of Trench, 


115 


116 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE ΟΕ ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 


Woolsey and others, and comes to the conclusion that in 
Biblical Greek there is no difference in meaning between 
ἀγαπάω and φιλέω. I will not undertake to give a sum- 
mary of this article, but will merely say that future in- 
vestigators wiil have to reckon with President Ballantine. 

Possibly the following remarks may throw a little 
additional light on this obscure matter. — 

1. There is a presumption against absolute identity of 
meaning in the case of almost any two words. This 
presumption is increased if the words express decided or 
strong feeling. It is still further increased if, in any par- 
ticular passage,the words have an antithetical position,or 
seem to have special attention called to them in any way. 

2. The difference in meaning may be very slight and 
yet real; for meaning covers not merely the intellectual 
analysis of a word, but its association,and various shades 
of impression. 

3. Many awriter fails to observe those distinctions in 
words which are sanctioned by the best usage. This 
may arise from a lack of literary cultivation, from negli- 
gence, from excited feeling, or purposely for some tem- 
porary reason. So also a writer may observe the nicest 
distinctions in some parts of his work and neglect them 
in others. There is a personal usage, as well as general. 

4. The fact that a word was being superseded by 
another would not prove that both were used without dis- 
crimination. Sometimes it might be the antique air itself 
that recommended it,as in the English“ quoth” for “ said,” 
and “token” for “sign.” 


THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ὀγαπάω AND φιλέω 117 


5. When a word after long fluctuation settles down in a 
narrow corner of its former usage, it is natural to see in 
its earlier uses a tendency towards the final use. Ac- 
cording to that, φιλέω, meaning at last only “to kiss,” 
might during its later previous history express distinct- 
ively fondness, tenderness, or devotion. 

6. The classical usage of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω is not 
much disputed. The former is more like the Latin 
“diligo,” the latter “amo,” but the line is not sharply 
drawn except that φιλέω only /means to kiss, this use 
being as early as Herodotus. Aristotle,after saying (Rhet. 
I., 11,17) that to be loved is pleasant (τὸ φιλεῖσϑαι ἡδύ). adds 
that “to be loved is to be held dear for one’s own sake,” 
τὸ δὲ φιλεῖσϑαι ἀγαπᾶσϑαί ἐστιν αὐτὸν δὲ αὑτόν. The 
standard quotation from Dion Cassius (about A. D. 180) 
has peculiar interest because it is from the speech of An- 
tony, and must, therefore, be virtually a translation from 
the Latin. He says of Cesar (44, 48, 1): ᾿ἘΕφιλήσατε 
αὐτὸν ὡς πατέρα, χαὶ ἡγαπήσατε ὡς ebepyétyv—“ Ye loved him 
as afather, and held him dear as a benefactor”—where 
one can plainly see the Latin amabatis, diligebatis. 

7. Much more important is the usage of the Septua- 
gint. Here the prevailing word is ἀγαπάω, being found, 
including the Apocrypha, about 270 times. It has a wide 
range. Says Ballantine, speaking of the canonical books, 
“Tt is the word in constant use to express (1) God’s love to 
man, (2) God’s love for truth and other virtuous and. 
worthy objects, (3) man’s love for God, (4) man’s love 
for salvation and worthy objects, (5) man’s conscientious 


118 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 


love for man, (6) ordinary human friendship, (7) paren- 
tal and filial affection, (8) the love of husband and wife, 
(9) impure sexual love, (10) man’s love for cursing and 
other vices and sinful objects.” (P. 527). Very differ- 
ent is it with φιλέω. Of the twenty-five times of its oc- 
currence, fourteen times it means to kiss, translating the 
Hebrew [ 2. Nine times it represents JAN, like 
ἀγαπάω, and expresses once Jacob’s love for Joseph, twice 
the love of wisdom, four times—three times applied to 
Isaac—love for a certain food. Twice it is joined 
with ἀγαπάω (ἐγὼ τοὺς ἐμὲ φιλοῦντας ἀγαπῶ, Prov. viii. 
17, and Hos. iii. 1). Inno case does it exhibit any re- 
markable difference from ἀγαπάω. But this is very re- 
markable, that it is so nearly a discarded word, except in 
the sense of “kiss.” Inthe Psalms, which echo through- 
out with love, it never appears; in the Proverbs rarely, 
and in Isaiah but once. Why this blight on φιλέω 
in the Septuagint? I can think of no reason but this, that 
the usage of the time had emphasized its meaning of “kiss,” 
and the Seventy having chosen it to represent the He- 
brew (2222, its unfitness for general use for love was in- 
creased. There being back of this a pressure from the 
fact that the original Hebrew mostly used but one word 
for love, it was inevitable that the one Greek word should 
be ἀγαπάω and not φιλέω; and if we make the distinc- 
tion of higher and lower, the former is the higher word. 

8. In passing to New Testament usage we might ex- 
pect a still further repression of φιλέω from the influ- 
ence of the Septuagint, but this is not true of the New 


THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 119 


Testament as a whole. As its usage is composite, it is 
best to consider the writers separately. 

Matthew uses ἀγαπάω eight times, always with a per- 
sonal object, God, our neighbor, enemies, etc. He uses 
φιλέω five times, twice in one passage of loving father, 
mother, son or daughter more than Christ, twice of 
things, praying standing, and uppermost rooms, and once 
concerning the kiss of Judas. His usage is like that of 
the Septuagint. 

Mark uses a verb for love only six times, four times in 
one passage (xii. 30-33) in regard to the commands to love 
God and our neighbor. Here ἀγαπάω is found, and the 
language of the commands follows (as in Matthew and 
Luke), with some variations, the Septuagint. This 
leaves the account of the man whom Jesus loved, as he 
looked upon him (dyazdw), and the language of Judas, 
“ Whomsoever I shall kiss” (φιλέω). 

Luke uses the same word for kiss (xxii. 47) and only 
once besides (xx. 46), of those who “love greetings in the 
markets.” He uses ἀγαπάω 13 times mostly parallel with 
Matthew, but also once (xi. 43), very noticeably, of loving 
chief seats and salutations. In the Acts Luke has no 
word for love, ‘neither verb nor noun. The synoptic 
writers, then, follow in the main the usage of the Sep- 
tuagint in discriminating against φιλέω; its use being 
sufficient to show that it was a part of their vocabulary, 
but on a lower plane of meaning than ἀγαπάω. 

Before taking up the writings of John let us glance at 
other writers of the New Testament. Peter uses ἀγαπάω 


120 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 


only; in the first epistle four times (i. 8, 225 ii. 173 iii. 
10), and in the second once (ii. 15). “Whom not having 
seen ye love,” “Love one another,” “Love the brother- 
hood,” “Would love life’—this a quotation from the 
Septuagint—“ Loved the wages of unrighteousness.” 
James has ἀγαπάω only, and three times, twice in re- 
peating the thought “promised to them that love him” 
(i. 12, ii. 5) and once in the command to love our neigh- 
bor (ii. 8). The writer to the Hebrews uses ἀγαπάω only, 
both times in quotations from the Septuagint (1. 9; xii.6). 
Paul goes even beyond the Septuagint in his prefer- 
ence—spontaneous, of course—for ἀγαπάω. It is found 
in all his epistles except Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus 
and Philemon, and is-most used in Ephesians—ten times. 
Φιλέω is found but twice, as against thirty-four, in 
all, of ἀγαπάω. In these two passages—“If any man 
love not the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. xvi. 22) and 
“Greet them that love us in the faith” (Tit. iii. 15)—I 
cannot see a shade of difference from ἀγαπάω, and 1 imagine 
that in both cases he was led to depart from his almost 
universal usage by the word φέλημα, which was associ- 
ated in his mind with Christian greeting, and at the close 
of 1 Corinthians was used but a line before φιλεῖ. 
Coming now to the “ Apostle of love,” we find that in 
his epistles ἀγαπάω only is used, and that thirty-one times 
uniformly and with enthusiastic iteration it carries its 
deep, serious meaning. In Revelation φιλέω is found 
twice; once of loving a lie (xxii. 15), also in the mes- 
sage to the Laodiceans—* As many as: I love I rebuke 


THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 121 


and chasten” (iii. 19). “Ayazdw is used four times (i. 5, 
ili. Ὁ; ΧΙ, 11, xx. 9). 

Next, let us examine the Gospel, omitting the 21st 
chapter. Here, although φιλέω is used much less than 
adyaxnaw—eight to thirty-three—we seem to see a com- 
plete breaking away from the Septuagint as to the com- 
parative elevation and dignity of the two words. Not 
only is there the closest resemblance in meaning, but there 
are several remarkable parallel uses. Thus, “ The Father 
loveth (ἀγαπᾷ) the Son” (iii. 35), and “The Father loveth 
(φιλεῖ) the Son” (v. 20). “He that loveth (ἀγαπᾷ) me 
shall be loved (ἀγαπηϑήσεται) of my Father” (xiv. 21), and 
in the same discourse, further on, “The Father himself 
loveth (φιλεῖ) you, because ye have loved (πεφιλήχατε) 
me” (xvi. 27). “The disciple standing by whom he 
loved” (ἡγαάπα) (xix. 26), and in the next chapter, “The 
other disciple whom Jesus loved” (ἐφέλει) (xx. 2). 
With these examples before us, can we hesitate to add , 
another as a true parallel, though in the face of Trench’s 
ingenious distinction, “He whom thou lovest (φιλεῖς) 
is sick” (xi.3),with “How he loved (ἐφίλει) him” (xi.36) 
and “ Jesus loved (jydza) Martha and her sister and Laza- 
rus.” This leaves but two examples of gcdév—“He that 
loveth his life” (xii. 25), and “The world would love its 
own” (xv. 19). Weare not yet through with John’s 
use of these words, but so far, the impression is made on 
my own mind that he is uncritical in verbal distinctions, 
and willing to duplicate words inorder to avail himself of 
all the resources of the language in expressing his thought. 


122 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE ΟΕ ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 


9. We ought now to be prepared to take up the last 
chapter of the Gospel and the dialogue between our Lord 
and Peter. A discussion of the style of this chapter, as 
evincing its substantial genuineness, may be found in the 
article of President Woolsey already referred to. 

An important question arises at once, viz., whether 
this dialogue was spoken in Greek or in Aramaic. It is 
probable that the latter, the Palestinian Syriac, was the 
language employed; for, (1) being the true vernacular 
of the country, we should expect it generally in private 
conversation. Paul used it even in a public speech at 
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 40). (2) The mode of address- 
ing Peter indicates this. While the evangelist, writing 
in Greek, calls him Simon Peter, Jesus in all three ques- 
tions calls. him Simon (son) of John, i. e., Simon Bar- 
Jonah, as in Matt. xvi. 17, which is Aramaic. Now if 
the conversation was in Aramaic,then the word for love, 
which John varies so strikingly, was probably one and the 
same in every case. Some evidence of this comes from 
the Old Syriac version, reinforced by the Peshitto ver- 
sion. The former is assigned to about A. D. 150 and is 
therefore a good witness to the Aramaic of our Savior’s 
time. The Curetonian fragments do not contain the last 
seven chapters of John, but the recently discovered Sinai 
Codex, fortunately, has the larger part of them, including 
the twenty-first chapter, with the loss of only a word or 
two in the 19th verse. Inthe interview with Peter only 
one word is used for love (in Hebrew characters Bf7), 
and that in the face of the almost obtrusive use of two 


THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 123 


words in the original Greek. The rendering of the whole, 
however, is so inexact that it may be well to give it. 
Mrs. Lewis’ translation is: “And when they had eaten, 
Jesus saith to Simon, Thou [art] Simon, son of Jonah, 
lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord. He 
saith unto him, Feed my lambs. Again Jesus saith to 
him, Thou [art] Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me 
much? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord. He saith unto 
him, Feed my sheep. Again Jesus saith unto him, 
Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me? Simon was grieved 
because three times Jesus spoke thus unto him. Simon 
saith unto him, Thou knowest all things; thou knowest 
that I love thee. And he said, Feed my flock.” Here 
the word for love is found only four times, instead of 
the seven of the original, but the fourth time it is the 
rendering of φιλεῖς. Looking through the rest of John’s 
Gospel, we find only four times in which another verb is 
used for love, SN, just enough to show that the trans- 
lator used Of, not because there was absolutely no 
other, but because it was the regular, accepted word to 
denote love. Notonly does he use it always to render φελέω, 
except with the meaning to kiss, in all the Gospels, but 
thirty-six times for ἀγαπάω, as against eight times of 
ΠΝ. In eighteen passages containing ἀγαπάω, and one 
containing φιλέω, the word is missing. 

The Peshitto (perhaps A. D. 300) translates the dia- 
logue much more literally than the Sinai MS., but gives 
seven times over the same Of for love. Through- 
out the rest of the Gospel it follows the Old Syriac, in 


124 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 


the main, for ἀγαπάω and φιλέω; two or three times 
deviating in favor of ΠΝ for ἀγαπάω. In other parts of 
the New Testament, outside of Old Syriac influence, 3X 
is much more used, and exclusively in the epistles of John. 
Thus it seems that distinguishing between the two Greek 
originals was gaining ground, and in the Harklensian 
Version (A. D. 600), an extremely literal one, ΠΝ, 
according to Bernstein, was uniformly used for ἀγαπάω, 
and Of for φιλέω. The later versions, then, show a 
change under the pressure of the Greek, but leave unim- 
paired the testimony of Old Syriac to the older Aramaic. 
This testimony is corroborated by the Peshitto Old Tes- 
tament, which, receiving no bias from its original, uni- 
formly translates the Hebrew 3X by OM. 

But does not the fact that John uses so markedly the 
two words prove, against all other evidence, that two 
different words were employed in the conversation? It 
might possibly, if he were translating from a book, but 
not as reporting an interview. This brings us back toa 
characteristic of John’s style, already noticed, viz., his 
duplicating Greek words. John was no master of Greek— 
he could write even πρῶτός μου ἦν (John i. 15, 30)—but he 
was a master of earnestness, and was willing to seek an 
elementary, not artistic,emphasis by varying and accumu- 
lating words whose differences he was not disposed to 
magnify. How far he was from critical precision in the 
use of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω he himself suggests by say- 
ing that Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the 
third time φιλεῖς με; whereas in strict literalness he 


THE NEW TESTAMENT USE ΟΕ ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 125 


had said it butonce. A good illustration of John’s method 
is found in his use of two other words interwoven in this 
same passage with the words we are discussing—the three- 
eur eats 3... ..) ποίμαινε. ss... Booxe. Here 
again the Old Syriac has but one word for “feed” 
—almost identical with the Hebrew fY"—and the 
Peshitto version the same. John, however, interprets, 
and skillfully, the one Aramaic by the two Greek. It 
cannot be that he did not know and feel the difference 
between βόσχω and ποιμαίω. We should have looked 
for but one Greek verb, the higher one, ποιμαίνω, as we 
find it from the lips of Paul in Acts xx. 28, “Feed the 
church of God,” and in 1 Peter v. 2, but John combines 
the two. So we may say that he combines ἀγαπάω and 
φιλέω to bring out the whole of love. If he had been 
writing in Latin he would, doubtless, have used both 
diligo and amo,not to report a sort of word-play between 
Peter and his Master, but to say all that the Latin could 
say in unfolding love. If, however, he had been writ- 
ing in English he would probably have been satisfied 
with the one word which, as in Hebrew and Aramaic, 
covers the whole field, and would hardly have placed 
in his margin: “The poverty of English prevents me 
from using two words for love instead of one.” 

The outcome of all this discussion is, that the New 
Testament writers, except John, followed the usage of 
the Septuagint, but with some religious momentum 
added to ἀγαπάω, as the word of the Divine Law “ Thou 
shalt love,” and of the worship of the Psalms. They 


126 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ἀγαπάω AND φιλέω 


recognized the lower plane of φιλέω, but John, in his 
Gospel, chose to put both words, for the time being, on 
a level, adding the warmth of one to the dignity of the 
other, that he might round out the expression of the 
enthusiasm of his life, the gospel of Divine Love. 


Vill 
THE HISTORICAL PRESENT IN THE FOUR GOSPELS 


Proressor Burton in his “New Testament Moods 
and Tenses” gives the following definition of the historical 
present: “The Present Indicative is used to describe 
vividly a past event in the presence of which the speaker 
conceives himself to be.” (§ 14.) But as the vividness 
admits of degrees, and sometimes lowers itself to a mere 
habit of style, we may say that every present that is 
used in narration where a past tense would be more 
exact, is a historical present. The Gospel of Mark, it 
is well known, contains many examples of this present. 
A class in New Testament Greek was once asked to 
compare the usage, in this respect, of the four Gospels 
by counting the examples in each. The result was as 
follows: Matthew 93, Mark 143, Luke 16, John 160. 
This should be modified, of course, by the fact that Mark 
is the shortest Gospel. If Mark be called 1, then John ~ 
would be about 1%, Matthew 1%, and Luke 1%. 
Using this proportion, we correct the figures thus: 
Matthew 62, Mark 143, Luke g, John 128. This rep- 
resents the relative usage, and proves that, while there 
is a great difference between Mark and Matthew, and 
while Luke is almost out of consideration, there is prac- 
tically no difference, in mere numbers, between Mark 


127 


128 THE HISTORICAL PRESENT IN THE GOSPELS 


and John. In regard to the verbs that are used in the 
historical present, we should expect, in such narratives 
as the Gospels, a large use of “he says” and “he comes.” 
Matthew uses λέγω 65 times, ἔρχομαι 5 times, and 15 
other verbs together 23 times. Mark uses λέγω 68 
times, ἔρχομαι 25 times, and 22 other verbs 50 times. 
Luke uses λέγω 9. times. John uses λέγω 117 times 
—Aéyet 19 times in one chapter, the 21st, which is as- 
sumed to be genuine—épyoyar 15 times, and 17 other 
verbs 28 times. The large number of different verbs 
indicates a fixed habit on the part of three of the Evan- 
gelists. 

This usage forms a very simple, but trustworthy 
test of style and authorship. The test of vocab- 
ulary is less certain, because the acquisition of new 
words is more a matter of conscious purpose, and self- 
training, and is more dependent on circumstances, read- 
ing, and associates. A grammatical habit, though less 
obtrusive, is more fundamental, and a better sign of 
identity, because it is almost beneath consciousness. To 
affirm or deny authorship from vocabulary merely, is like 
judging handwriting by carefully formed capitals, in- 
stead of by the slope and angles and unintentional, 
almost unavoidable, peculiarities of the common letters. 

A fine illustration of the historical present as a feature 
of style is furnished by Xenophon’s Anabasis. Not only 
the ἐντεῦϑεν ἐξελαύνει, of pleasant recollections, instead 
of ἤλασε (1. 2. 23), reiterates this tense, but the very 
first verb in the book is an historical present—Japetov 


THE HISTORICAL PRESENT IN THE GOSPELS 129 


xat Παρυσάτιδος γίγνονται παῖδεδ δύο---ὐὰ that too with 
very little occasion for employing it. This lack of 
occasion indicates at the outset a Zadz¢t of style. In the 
first three sections of Chapter I., containing only 16 
Indicative tenses, and but little over 100 words (113), 
there are seven instances of the historical present, and 31 
in the first two chapters. Thucydides has ove (I. xxvi. 
3) in the first 36 chapters of Book I.; but a fair compari- 
son would make account of subject-matter. 

The infrequency of this present in the Gospel of Luke 
raises the question whether it is found much in the Acts. 
If it were, one mark of Luke’s authorship would be 
lacking. I have not been able to discover a single ex- 
ample, although many opportunities for its use occur, not 
only in general, but in the various riots described, and in 
the famous voyage and shipwreck. In regard to the dif- 
ferences between the first three Evangelists, they suggest 
that neither copied from the other; but each employed 
his own style on much common material, derived largely 
from Aramaic sources, either oral or written. 


ΙΧ 


DOES THE PREFACE TO LUKE’S GOSPEL BELONG ALSO 
TO THE ACTS? 


᾿Επειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασϑαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν 
πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, χαϑὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἵ 
ar ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται χαὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, ἔδοξε xdpor 
παρηχολουϑηχότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀχριβῶς χαϑεξῆς σοι γράφαι, 
χράτιστε θεόφιλε, ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν χατηχήϑης λόγων τὴν 


ἀσφάλειαν. 
—Luke i. 1-4. 


Tov μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ πάντων, ὦ Oedgile, dy 
ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ϊησοῦς ποιεῖν τε χαὶ διδάσχειν, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας ἐντειλά- 
μενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου οὃς ἐξελέξατο ἄνε- 


λήμφϑη. 
—Acts i, 1, 2. 


I assuME that Luke wrote both the Gospel that bears 
his name and the Acts. This, the traditional view, 
carrying with it the integrity, unity and trustworthiness 
of the Acts, is vigorously defended in Salmon’s Intro- 
duction to the New Testament (1891), Lecture XVIII. 
Later, the same is maintained, from the standpoint of 
history and geography, by Professor Ramsay, against 
Spitta* and others, throughout his “St. Paul, the 
Traveller and the Roman Citizen” (1896). A new phase 
of the discussion was opened by Professor Fr. Blass, 


*Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher Wert, von 
Friederich Spitta, 1891. 


130 


THE PREFACE TO LUKE’S GOSPEL 131 


whose theory, briefly stated in the Prolegomena of his 
“ Acta Apostolorum, sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber 
Alter” (1895), pp- 30-32, is that Luke issued two editions 
of the Acts, the first of which, afterwards revised by him 
to our present text, is represented by the Codex Bezae. 
This is supported by Otto Zéckler in Greifswalder 
Studien (1895), pp. 109-145 (Die Apostelgeschichte als 
Gegenstand héherer und niederer Kritik), and seems to 
be endorsed by not a few scholars. 

With these references to recent discussion, I take up 
the question, “ Does the Preface to Luke’s Gospel belong 
also to the Acts?” and remark— 

1. That there is no express limitation confining the 
coming narrative to the life of Christ. Such a limita- 
tion would be very natural, if it were intended to write 
the Gospel only. The very language required may be 
found in the first verse of the Acts; and we might ex- 
pect Luke to write, “It seemed good to me also to relate 
all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in 
which he was taken up.” Such is not his statement. 
Even the name of Jesus is not found. This cannot be 
due to brevity, for the preface, though but a single sen- 
tence, is not concise, but somewhat ample in style. It 
is true that if we take it for granted that it belongs to 
the Gospel only, it is appropriate enough, but it is much 
more appropriate if not confined to that. It is hardly 
necessary to add that on this point no account should be 
made of the order of the books in the Canon. The matter 
should be viewed precisely as if the book of the Acts 


132 THE PREFACE TO LUKE’S GOSPEL 


followed immediately after the Gospel of Luke, with the 
intervention of no more than a few blank lines and a title. 
Doubtless Luke himself issued the two together after 
both had been written. 

2. Some of the expressions in the preface fore- 
shadow a longer period than is covered by the Gospel. 
The connected narrative (διήγησις) is to be (like that of 
“many”), “concerning those matters which have been 
fulfilled (Ν᾽ ulgate,completae sunt) among us.” Πεπληροφορη- 
μένων may mean “fully established” as an institution, or 
“fully proved.” Ineither case Theophilus is to know the 
certainty of the instructions he has received; and Luke is 
to write “in order,” because he has made careful inves- 
tigation of “all things from the beginning (ἄνωθεν). 
The promise, then, is to go over all the facts embraced 
in the Christian faith, and to confirm all the usual in- 
structions given to converts. Could this promise be ful- 
filled without saying even a word about the outpouring 
of the Spirit at Pentecost? Would one writing more 
than twenty years after that Pentecost promise an ac- 
count of all essential Christian facts, and yet not mean 
to say anything of those glorious years which were 
the crown and fulfillment of Christ’s earthly life? Fur- 
ther, his promise is based on knowing “all things from 
the beginning.” Does not this suggest that he will bring 
the history down from the beginning to about the time 
of writing? The moment we cease to take it for granted 
that this preface applies to the Gospel only, its expres- 
sions look towards a larger purpose. If there were no 


THE PREFACE TO LUKE’S GOSPEL . 133 


subsequent book by the same writer, we could, indeed, 
interpret these expressions in a narrower sense, or, with 
Meyer, in a philosophical sense, as indicating that the 
gospel-history is the sure foundation of Christianity. 
But is it not better to say that the writer of these large 
promises, after fulfilling a part, laid down his pen for a 
short time, and then took it up again and fulfilled the 
rest? 

One thing seems, at first view, to oppose what I have 
now urged. Luke appears to disclaim the character of 
eye-witness, and to depend for his authority on those 
who were “eye-witnesses and ministers of the word”; 
and yet in the latter part of the Acts he writes as an eye- 
witness of the life of Paul. In regard to this, these 
points should be noted: (1) The largest part of the 
Acts is as dependent on the testimony of others as the 
Gospel. (2) Even the original portions—the nine chap- 
ters at the close, and a part of the sixteenth—are largely 
made up of the testimony of Paul, a “minister of the 
word.” (3) It would seem to be pressing the language 
unduly to insist that nothing whatever should be added 
from personal observation. (4) If the preface were 
written beforehand—and it may well have been—the 
author may not have known precisely at what point his 
narrative would stop. 

3. The introduction to the Acts harmonizes with the 
idea that the book is a continuation originally intended, 
and not an afterthought. There is no proper preface, 
like that which is prefixed to the Gospel. There is 


134 * THE PREFACE TO LUKE’S GOSPEL 


simply a statement of the ground already gone over in 
the Gospel, followed by a re-statement (verses 3-12), with 
additions, of the account of the parting words and the 
ascension, found in the closing verses of the Gospel. 
This is what we should expect if the Acts were Part II. 
of a continuous history. This impression is confirmed 
by the opening words, which refer to the Gospel as 
τὸν πρῶτον λόγον. The word λόγος itself favors this 
view somewhat, but is not decisive. ‘Those who have 
not wholly forgotten their “ Anabasis” will recall that in 
the opening sentence of each book after Book I., with 
a single exception, Xenophon gives a summary of the 
events gone over ἐν τῷ πρόσϑεν λόγῳ. The λόγος referred 
to in the opening of the second book is Book I. In the 
other cases it means the narrative contained in all the 
preceding books; but in no case does it designate a 
work other than the Anabasis. So Herodotus in his 
second book (38)says of matters afterwards mentioned in 
Book III., τὰ ἐγὼ ἐν ἄλλῳ λόγῳ ἐρέω; and in referring (V. 
36) to certain offerings of Croesus mentioned in Book I. 
92, he says, ὡς δεδήλωταί μοι ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν λόγων. Here 
the usage is just like that of the Latin Zzder. There 
seems to be no such usage in the New Testament, unless 
this in the Acts be a case of it. In Greek of the times, 
outside of the New Testament, the usage is not unknown, 
as is shown by Birt in “Das antike Buchwesen” (p. 
28). In titles, which, though not to be depended on as 
of the same age as their books, may yet have some value 
for traditional usage, we find that Josephus has λόγος 


THE PREFACE TO LUKE’S GOSPEL 135 


in the Jewish War, though βίβλος in the Antiquities; 
Dionysius Hal. has λόγος, also Philo in the Lifetof Moses, 
and Lucian. | 

But without making too much of λόγος, we may 
say that the phrase τὸν πρῶτον λόγον seems like the num- 
bering of distinct portions of awork. Professor Ramsay 
argues (St. Paul, etc., p. 28) that the phrase “is more rec- 
oncilable with the plan of three books than of two.” 
In Lucian’s True History, however, (perhaps A. D. 
150) we find, as title, “Adyj8ods “Ιστορίας λόγος πρῶτος, 
although there are but twobooks. The entire impres- 
sion seems to me to be that this second λόγος is not an-in- 
dependent διήγησις, but Part 11, of the διήγησις promised 
in the preface. 

4. Itis generally agreed that Luke did actually write 
the Acts shortly after the Gospel. It is therefore very 
improbable that he did not have in mind doing so when 
he began the Gospel. Is it not, indeed, likely that his 


familiarity with the later events led him to follow back 


to its sources (παραχολουϑεῖν) the whole history? Thus 
the Acts, while yet unwritten, would give rise to the 
Gospel. Alford thinks (Proleg. Luke, sec. iv.) that at 
least five years intervened between the publication of the 
Gospel and the Acts; and his principal reason is that 
the account of the ascension is much fuller in the latter, 
indicating access to additional information. But how 
long can we assume that it would take a historian to get 
new information? It might be five years or five days. 
A very diligent and careful investigator, like Luke, 


λ. 


"\BRAR 
OF THE 


ae 


UNIVERSITY 
\cauironnn 


136 THE PREFACE TO LUKE’S GOSPEL 


would be quite as likely to find it soon as late. We can 
see no good ground for questioning the common opinion 
that the Gospel was written but a short time before the 
Acts; say, during the two years of Paul’s first imprison- 
ment. If this is so, the preface can hardly be divorced 
from the Acts. 

The evidence, then, seems to show that while the pref- 
ace to the Gospel is not such a one as would be written 
after both works were completed, yet it was written 
with both in mind. Whatever may have been the inter- 
val of publication, the whole work might be entitled, 
The history of the establishment of the Christian faith. 
—Part I. The life of Jesus; Part II. The manifestation 
of the Holy Spirit, and the founding of the church. 


Χ 
CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 


Οὐχ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν φυχήν pov εἰς ἅδην. Acts ii. 27 (Ps. 
XVi. 10). 
᾿Αναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ἡχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν. Eph. iv. 8. 


“He descended into hell”—so runs the venerable and 
majestic Creed. But the American Episcopal Prayer- 
book prefixes its timid rubric as follows: “ Any churches 
may omit the words ‘He descended into hell,’ or may, in- 
stead of them, use the words ‘He went into the place of 
departed spirits,’ which are considered as words of the 
same meaning in the Creed.” The words which are 
here made optional have come down to us in an unbroken 
line of doctrinal succession from the fourth century. 
They have, indeed, been stigmatized as an interpolation, . 
but so early an interpolation might perhaps be called a ma- 
ture addition. Their omission in English was favored 
by the change of meaning in the word “hell,” but there 
was also the feeling that Christ’s visit to Hades was of 
little importance, and is to us not a doctrine, but a matter 
of mere curiosity. 

Now, whatever may be true of the “ Apostles’ 
Creed,” the Descent into Hades has a sufficient New 
Testament authority. © The first recorded address of 
Peter contains twofold evidence that the Descent was be- 


137 


138 CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 


lieved by both speaker and hearers. In the first place, 
he quotes from a Psalm (xvi.) that had a shaping influ- 
ence on the belief of the people respecting Hades. Fur- 
ther, he bases an argument and appeal for the resurrec- 
tion of Christ on the certainty that he would not stay in 
Hades. “Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades.” 

But what was Hades, and what the significance and 
importance of Christ’s going thither? In a somewhat 
recent discussion I find these words: “The Savior was in 
the same state between death and resurrection as we now 
are after death.” This is, it seems to me, precisely what 
ought zot to be said. For this ignores the whole work 
of Christ in Hades, and leaves them that sleep in Jesus 
no better off than if he had not risen. Let us put our- 
selves in the place of the apostles and their fellow dis- 
ciples, and after we have learned the truth about Hades 
as it appeared in their thought and forms of statement, 
then we may, if we can, translate it into our own 
thoughts and forms of statement. Hades was the region 
where dwelt the souls that were under the power of 
death. The souls of the righteous as well as of the 
wicked were under this awful power. Into this region 
came the soul of the Crucified, but it did not remain 
there. Going thither was the lowest point in his humil- 
iation, and leaving was the beginning of his triumph. 
What, then, was the effect zz Hades of this visit and this 
departure? But this is the same as to ask, What was the 
effect, in the spirit-world, of the resurrection? Accord- 
ing to the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of 


CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 139 


Pilate,—of perhaps the fourth century,—two of the 
saints that arose at the resurrection of Christ, Charinus 
.and Lenthius, sons of Simeon, wrote out all that they 
were allowed to reveal of the coming of Jesus into 
Hades. This Gospel was the basis of the medieval mir- 
acle play “ The Harrowing of Hell.” The work in Hades, 
here somewhat grotesquely described, was the deliverance 
from hell of the ancient saints, and may be summed up in 
a single one of its own sentences—* And taking hold of 
Adam by his right hand, he ascended from hell, and all 
the saints of God followed him.”* 

I do not say that the Gospel of Nicodemus is to be 
trusted, but it may be as near the truth as the statement 
that “the Savior was in the same state between death and 
the resurrection as we now are after death”—a statement 
that would be accepted, probably, by a majority of 
Christians. A dear friend writes me,“I have no preju- 
dice against Hades, and when I die, I expect to go 
there”; but surely he is not thinking of the Hades in the 
' minds of the apostles and primitive disciples. After they 
had come to understand the resurrection of Christ and 
feel its power, they were filled with what may be called 
the resurrection-enthusiasm. In their view the resur- 
rection-era was already begun. Death and hell [Hades] 
were vanquished. Wesley’s hymn has the true apostolic 


spirit :— 
‘Our Lord is risen from the dead, 
Our Jesus is gone up on high; 
The powers of hell are captive led, 
Dragged to the portals of the sky.” 


*Gospel of Nicodemus, xix. 12 


140 CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 


Just whén the resurrection was to take visible effect in 
themselves, the disciples could not say, and it did not 
matter. To die was to go and be with him who had 
risen. And such a dying did not deserve the name of 
death. It was a sleep; it was the putting off of this taber- 
nacle; it was a departure; it was not the death that all 
past ages had known, for Jesus had said: “ He that liveth 
and believeth in me shall never die.” 

To the question why the Descensus is not oftener i 
spoken of in the New Testament, the answer is, that, 
going to Hades is taken for granted as a part of death. 
It was not necessary to speak of both whenever either 
was mentioned. In the Revelation, indeed, the two are 
linked together: “I have the keys of death and of Hades” 
(i. 18); “His name was death, and Hades followed with 
him” (vi. 8); “And death and Hades gave up the dead 
which were in them. . . . And death and Hades 
were cast into the lake of fire” (xx. 13, 14). The men- 
tion of either was logically sufficient. “Ἅιδης, both in 
heathen and Biblical usage, represents death in its rela- 
tion to the soul. But the Hades of the Bible is nota 
home for believers, even temporarily. It is Hades tri- 
umphed over by him who “brought life and incorruption 
[exemption from death] to light.” “When he ascended 
on high he led captivity captive” (Eph. iv. 8). Death 
was “swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. xv. 54). The res- 
urrection-enthusiasm of the New Testament is the re- 
sponse of faith to those glorious words, “I go to prepare 
a place for you,” which place was not in Hades, The 


CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 141 


same divine enthusiasm refused to recognize any “ inter- 
mediate state,” the old abolished Hades under a new 
name. Stephen did not say, “ Behold, I see the Son of 
man in Hades.” Can we wonder that the early disciples 
looked for a speedy return of the Lord? Does one say, 
It was anerror? It was not; for it was necessary to the 
highest truth. The resurrection-spirit refused to see the 
long interval of waiting. As has been said of the 
prophets that they looked from one mountain-top of his- 
tory to another, and could not see the low-lying valleys 
between, so we may say of the apostles, that they saw the 
triumph over death and hell as a complete victory, and 
they would have been false to the power of the truth, if 
they had not looked upon it as gloriously near. “The 
reign of Death is over; Hades is abolished; Life and 
Immortality have come”—this is the key-note of the 
resurrection-spirit. Christ’s resurrection might as well 
be called a resurrection from Hades as from the grave. 

I will not dwell on the preaching to “the spirits in 
prison” (1 Pet. iii. 18-20). It cannot be needful that 
there should be a thousand and one expositions of that 
passage, instead of simply a thousand; but the point of 
view we are taking has to do with it in at least two par 
ticulars :— 

1. The Descent was necessary without any regard to 
the preaching. The Descent itself, however, was a proc- 
lamation of unspeakable meaning. ‘The inhabitants of 
the spirit-world were not in solitary confinement or un- 
conscious sleep. They saw the Redeemer at the lowest 


142 CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 


point in his work of redemption, and at the beginning of 
his triumph. 

2. This preaching looks backward to the past. This 
is in harmony with the idea that Hades was now abol- 
ished, and the spirit-world revolutionized. We might 
imagine that the object of the Descent was to plant the 
Christian church in Hades and ordain for it a succession 
of Hades-apostles, and so forth, but the view of Peter 
was that Hades came to an end. The preaching was 
once for all. Why the antediluvians are referred to may 
perhaps be explained by the fact that so vast a number, 
going to their death in an awful catastrophe, made them 
the representatives and types of the Hades-world. It 
might have given the name of Antediluvian under-world. 
If one asks, Why should not those who have since died 
hear the preaching also? the Scripture gives no answer. 
A perpetual Hades with perpetual preaching in it is‘ no- 
where revealed. 

In regard to the whole question of the relation of the 
wicked to the resurrection, we need not wonder at the 
infrequent allusions to the risen wicked. The epistles 
of the New Testament are addressed to Christians. 
Paul’s great argument in 1 Cor. xv. runs into a grand 
anthem of Christian triumph. We cannot suppose that 
the enthusiasm of the apostles would rise over the fate of 
the wicked as over the redemption of the saints. But 
the resurrection-influence certainly reaches the wicked. 
One saying of the Master settles that: “They that have 
done good unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have 


CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 143 


done ill unto the resurrection of judgment” (John v. 29). 
This did not need for its certainty the echo of Paul: 
“There shall be a resurrection both of the just and un- 
just” (Acts xxiv. 15). The judgment scene in Matt. 
xxv. implies the resurrection of the wicked. The resur- 
rection period ends with the judgment. The divine fore- 
shortening places the coming in glory close by the 
resurrection. But we have the right to follow apostolic 
example, and avert oureyes from the fate of the wicked, 
and rejoice in the glory of the redeemed. 

Christ’s Descent, or rather Ascent, opened the resur- 
rection-era in the spirit-world as well as on earth, and 
began the fulfillment of the promise, “I go to prepare a 
place for you.” Shall we translate the apostolic 
thoughts and visions into modern thoughts and views? 
We cannot expect to comprehend fully the results of 
Christ’s death and resurrection in the unseen world. 
That it was a revolution is the unspoken testimony of our 
hearts whenever we think of those dear to us who sleep in 
Jesus, and whenever we look forward to our own death, 
which Hope names a resurrection-sleep. We are still 
living in the resurrection-era. When we die we shall 
not pass beyond the resurrection-influence. How shall 
we express this hope and faith? Shall we say, in the 
words of the shorter Westminster, “ The souls of believ- 
ers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do im- 
mediately pass into glory”? But to show the very heart 
and substance of the doctrine of Christ’s Descent into 
Hades—its depth of humiliation, its triumph, and its 


144 CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HADES 


glorious fruits—the Te Deum is better than the Cate- 
chism :-— 
“When thou had'st overcome the sharpness of death, 
Thou did’st open the kingdom of heaven to all believers.” 


XI 
APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE 


᾿Επίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν tetaypévot εἰς ξωὴν αἰώνιον. Acts 
ΧΙ, 48. 

Τάσσω is a word of order, arrangement. Soldiers in 
array are τεταγμένοι, each in his place. Those new 
Gentile converts were not acting at haphazard, when 
they were so ready to believe, but each in accordance 
with his history and character, and with the Divine 
arrangement of his life. This appointing to eternal life 
is called. by our Savior “giving.” In words of great 
tenderness he says, “All that which the Father giveth 
me shall come unto me, and him that cometh to me I will 
in no wise cast out” (John vi. 37). It also goes by the 
names “calling,” “choice,” “election,” but perhaps no 
word comes so well into line with modern thought as 
τεταγμένος, Which links the present and future to the past 
and to the throne of God. Such appointment, or election, 
is not restriction, but rather extension. The tone of the 
statement is comprehensive, not exclusive. We must not 
begin it “Only as many as,” “The few that,” but “ All 
that.” This the Greek ὅσοι requires. These Gen- 
tiles of Antioch were a notable accession to the infant 
Church. Divine election broadens, not narrows, the 
field of Christianity. It secures, not obstructs salvation. 

The linking of eternal life to God’s purpose and man’s 


145 


146 APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE 


faith has a very definite relation to the dogma, or hope, 
of probation beyond the grave. ‘Those who are ap- 
pointed to eternal life will not fail of it. This settles the 
question of future probation by destroying interest in it. 
Probation is not fundamental, but faith is. The smallest 
germ of faith secures salvation, with or without proba- 
tion. Probation, or rather the gospel, develops that germ, 
fills the believing with a new life, and gives the world a 
present salvation, but is not needed in order to reveal any 
man’s character to God. The number of the saved in- 
cludes all in whom God’s eye detects faith, whether 
developed or not. 


XII 


AGRIPPA TO PAUL! ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF 
LATIN IDIOM 

THE influence of Latin on the Greek of New Testa- 
ment times is unquestioned. Not only single Latin 
words, as χεντυρίων, are found in the New Testament, but 
translated phrases, as ἐργασίαν δοῦναι (oferam dare). The 
influence of Latin idiom would naturally be looked for in 
a report of the language of one brought up at Rome and 
speaking Greek before a Roman tribunal. Such a re- 
port we have in these words (according to the best text), 
"Ey ὀλίγῳ με πείϑεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι. This is translated 
in the Revised Version: “ With but little persuasion thou 
. wouldst fain make me a Christian.” This is certainly 
ingenious, but is it not forced? Why cannot Χριστιανὸν 
ποιῆσαι mean “to act the part of a Christian”? The Latin 
agere furnishes numerous parallels in writers of the 
Silver Age. According to- Tacitus, Piso says of Otho 
that his vices ruined the government, efzam cum amicum 
imperatoris ageret, “even when he was acting the part 
of a friend of the emperor.” Hist. 1.30. Mucianus is said 
to be socium magis imperit quam ministrum agens, 
“acting as an ally rather than a servant of the govern- 
ment.” Hist. 2.83. Thrasea is said agere senatorem, “to 
act the senator.” Annals 16.28. Quintilian says of Socrates, 
Agens imperitum et admiratorem aliorum tanguam 


147 


148 ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM 


sapientium, “acting the part of an ignoramus and an 
admirer of others as if they were wise.” Inst. Or. 9. 
2. 46. Also 11. 3. 91. and 12. ὃ. το. The following ex- 
amples are found in the Letters of Pliny: Sunt guz 
defunctorum guogue amicos agant, “act the part of 
friends.” 1.17. 1. Amzssogue Μέϊο matrem adhuc agere, 
“though the son was lost still to play the mother.” 111. 
16. 6. Patrem familiae hactenus ago, “I play the 
householder.” ix.15.3. Pliny’s Panegyric has these two: 
Tunc maxime imperator cum amicum ex tmperatore 
agis, 85.6, Cum agere tam bonum consulem posses. 
56. 3. A tragedy of Seneca, a contemporary of Paul, has 
the following line (Clytaemnestra to Electra) : Sed agere 
domita feminam disces malo, “‘Tamed by misfortune, 
thou shalt learn to play the woman.” Agam. v. 3. 7. 
Suetonius has several examples: Von frincipem sed 
ministrum egit. Claud. 29. Also Tiber. 12. 26. 
Valerius Maximus, writing in the reign of Tiberius, gives 
us at least twelve instances of this usage. Speaking of 
the first Brutus, and of the execution of his sons, he says, 
Exuit patrem ut consulem ageret. v. ὃ. 1. Of the 
famous Scaevola and his recreations he says, Ut enim in 
rebus seriis Scaevolam, tta et in [scenicis] lusthus hominem 
agebat. viii. 8, 2. In the same way agere is used with 
amicum iv. 2. 5., consulem ii. 2. 4., iii. 8. 3., 12. 2. 2.» 
feneratricem viii. 2. 2., virum, imperatorem vii. 2. 5., 
maritum, patrem ix. 13. 4., praetorem, vii. 7. 7.5 cus- 
todem Vi. 1. 4.5 reum, accusatorem iv. 2. 6., civem viii. 
6. 2. Velleius Paterculus, also in the time of Tiberius, 


ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM 149 


has agebat aemulum, Maroboduus “was playing the 
rival,” 11. 109. 1. He says of Tiberius that he was 
striving wt pottus aegualem civem quam eminentem liceret 
agere principem. 11. 124. 2 .Also 11. 92. 2. The fact 
that these examples are from the later Latin will 
not detract from their value. The distinction between 
agere and facere is not important in the idiom. We may 
add a single example of facere from Plautus, Ferocem 
facts, “you put on a bold face, Zz¢. do the bold man.” 
Most. iv. i. 32 (44). 

If this idiom be disallowed, it is still possible to derive 
a similar meaning by taking Χριστιανὸν as neuter, though 
we should expect the plural, as in Herodotus v. 40, 

ποιέων οὐδαμῶς Σπαρτιητιά. In either case, the un- 

usual meaning of ποιῆσαι may possibly explain the early 
change of the text to γενέσϑαε (from Paul’s answer), 
from which comes our received rendering, “thou per- 
suadest me to de a Christian.” 

The meaning “act the part of” would receive support, 
independently of the Latin, from one passage in the 
Septuagint, if the text were undisputed. In1 Kings (3 
Reg.) xx. (xxi.) 7, Jezebel says to Ahab, Σὺ viv οὕτω 
ποιεῖς βασιλέα ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραήλ; “ Art thou thus acting the king 
over Israel?” But a variant for βασιλέα is βασιλείαν, which 
indeed our Hebrew text would require. 

Unless Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι be taken to mean “to act the 
Christian” we seem to be driven to a very awkward con- 
nection of ποιῆσαι with πείϑεις. Πείϑω needs a personal sub- 
ject for a dependent infinitive. “ You are persuading me 


150 ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM 


to do” something, is intelligible and natural, but how about 
“You are persuading to make me”? It can hardly mean 
“You are trying by persuasion to make me” or “ You 
are prevailing to make me,” i. e., succeeding in making ; 
nor do I see howit can mean “ You would fain make 
me.” Besides, the position of μέ in the sentence is 
against its being the object of ποιῆσαι. Would it not 
in that case be nearer zotjoar? The latest eminent com- 
mentator on Acts, Professor Blass, following Codex 
Alexandrinus, adopts into his text πείϑῃ, saying in em- 
phatic Latin, “ πείϑεις . . -. ποιῆσαι ferri nequit.” 
His rendering is: “ Brevi tempore tibi persuades te Chris- 
tianum me reddidisse.” 

Is there not also a Latin idiom in ἐν ὀλίγῳ Readers of 
Livy find numerous examples of zz with the ablative, 
forming phrases equivalent to adjectives and adverbs; as 
in propinguo, in promiscuo, in facili, in difficili, etc. 
There may be no literary examples of zz farvo, or in 
paulo, but we have zz angusto (—angustus, Celsus, De 
Med. 8. 4, twice), and Tacitus, speaking of the dreary 
monotony of cruelty in his history, says “ Nobis zz arto 
et inglorius labor.” Ann. 4. 32. 3. So we have in 
our day the traditional phrases 7 toto, 7m extenso. It can 
hardly be claimed that ἐν ὀλίγῳ is a borrowed phrase, but it 
may possibly have an adverbial force, determined by 
Latin idiom. It would then be not the same as ἐν ὀλίγῳ 
in Eph. iii. 3, “in brief” (“as I wrote afore in few 
words”), but like ὀλίγως in 2 Peter ii. 1ὃ- - τοὺς ὀλίγως 
ἀποφεύγοντας,“ those that are escaping a ζέε. Then the 


ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM [51 


whole passage would read, somewhat literally: “ Agrippa 
said unto Paul, A little thou art persuading me to act the 
Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that both a 
little and a great deal, not thou only, but also all that 
hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these 
bonds,” | 


XIII 
RECONCILIATION BY SELF-REVELATION 


Διχαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ γάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως 
τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὃν προέϑετο 6 θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως 
ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς διχαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. Rom. 
111, 24, 25. 

Tue Revised Version of verses 24-26 is as follows: 
“Being justified freely by his grace through the re- 
demption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to 
be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to show his 
righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins 
done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the show- 
ing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: 
that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him 
that hath faith in Jesus.” If there is any passage in the 
New Testament that contains the philosophy of the 
atonement in its relation to justice, it is this; but that 
philosophy is here only incidental, and is discovered not 
by hair-splitting discussions of διχαιόω, ἀπολύτρωσις, and 
ἱλαστήριον, but by observing the antithesis between justice 
and forgiveness as overcome by God’s manifestation of 
himself; an antithesis not obtruded, but involved in the 
contrast between law and grace. Throughout the whole 
passage there is an undertone of unwillingness to forgive 
without doing something in the interest of righteousness, 


152 


RECONCILIATION BY SELF-REVELATION 153 


something to prevent the lowering of its supremacy; 
but there is implied no unwillingness to do that some- 
thing. Much has been said of the dishonor done to God 
by supposing him unwilling to forgive sin. All theology 
has echoed with the cry: “ Down with the thought that 
God needs to be made willing to forgive!” But how 
about the thought that God makes himself willing, or 
rather is eternally willing to forgive in his own way of 
attendant self-manifestation? No doubt there has been 
in common theories a false antithesis between the Divine 
attributes of justice and love, as if they belonged to 
different beings. There is indeed a difference in the 
Divine attitude towards good and towards evil that 
needs strong emphasis—towards sin the Divine frown and 
wrath,and zeal for its overwhelming and everlasting over- 
throw, towards righteousness the Divine smile and joy 
and infinite zeal for its enthronement. But that zeal that 
burns with so hot a flame against sin, and glows so 
brightly for righteousness,—when it meets human life, 
is so interfused with yearning to save the lost that it 
seems but another name for love. There has been also 
a false antithesis between justice and love, as to their at- 
tracting and transforming power. Righteousness draws, 
and holiness draws, as well as love and mercy. 

Now God’s revelation of himself is a true and per- 
fect satisfaction of justice, even, if you please, of retrzbu- 
tive justice, because it accomplishes abundantly the ends 
of retribution by enthroning right and dethroning wrong 
more completely than could punishment, be it ever so 


ἃ 


154 RECONCILIATION ΒΥ SELF-REVELATION 


severe, be it universal and eternal. Is this a philosophy 
of the atonement? Not exactly, but a broad and deep 
foundation for it. “In respect to the propitiatory efficacy 
of the atonement, pardon is dependent not on penal satis- 
faction, nor on mere sustained authority, but on the satis- 
faction of self-revelation, or such a complete exhibition 
of God’s righteous character as forever settles. the ques- 
tion of his essential and eternal justice. The atonement 
embodies this justice in a living Example, and thus 
makes it a restoring power in humanity.”* 


*This quotation is from an article entitled ‘‘The Atonement as a Revelation,”’ 
published in the New Englander for April, 1864. Compare also an article, ‘‘The 
os in the Light of Conscience,” in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 
1867. 


XIV 


THE MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS VIII. 29, AS 
ILLUSTRATED BY JOHN X. 27 


In English usage we do not speak of foreknowing a fer- 
son. In fact we use the word seldom even with an imper- 
sonal object, preferring “foresee”; as, “He foresaw the 
result,” “He foresaw the man in the child.” But our 
usage is different from that of the New Testament. Not 
except in a translation should we write such a sentence 
as this: “God hath not cast away his people which he 
foreknew” (Rom. xi. 2). The Latin usage resembles 
the English. The Greek itself is without usage, so far 
as I can find, outside of the New Testament, in connect- 
ing the compound zpoyiyywoxw with a personal object. 
In the Septuagint the word occurs but three times (in the 
Apocrypha, Sap. vi. 133 vili. 9; xviii. 6), and with an 
impersonal object. 

This state of the case plainly directs us to consult the 
usage of the uncompounded verb. Even here classical 
Greek gives little help; but we get some light from the 
Old Testament and the Hebrew Y (Lxx. yu ώσχω). This 
word, which, like all the other Hebrew verbs, admits no 
prepositions in composition, has a very wide meaning; 
and there are two or three examples that remind one of 
the passage in Romans. “The Lord .. . knoweth 


ae, 


156 MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS VIII. 29 


them that put their trust in him” (Nah.i. 7); “ You only 
have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos iii. 
2). 

But the clearest light comes from the New Testament 
itself, and especially from the tenth chapter of John. 
For comparison let us take Rom. viii. 29, 30, 35, 38, 39: 
“For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be 
conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the 
first-born among many brethren; and whom he foreor- 
dained, them he also called; and whom he called, them 
he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also 
glorified. . . . Who shall separate us from the love of 
Christ? ... ForI am persuaded that neither death, 
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things pres- 
ent, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor 
depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us 
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord.” Then John x. 27, 28, 16: “My sheep hear my 
voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give 
unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and 
no one shall snatch them out of my hand.” “ And other 
sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I 
must bring, and they shall hear my voice.” 

The comparison between these passages should apply 
not to a single word merely, but to the course of thought. 
In Romans the order is (1) foreknowing, (2) foreor- 
daining, (3) calling, (4) asure and glorious salvation. 
In John it is (1) the call, (2) the hearing and coming, 
(3) the recognition and following, (4) a sure eternal life. 


MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS VIII. 29 157 


My voice they hear, I know them, they follow me, I 
give them eternal life. In John, also, we have the thought, 
without the word “foveknow.” The Shepherd’s eye is 
on “other sheep which are not of this fold,” future in- 
stead of present disciples. He foreknows them. He 
must bring them and they shall hear his voice; i. e., 
whom he foreknows he also calls. Our Lord says noth- 
ing here of foreordaining, but the thought is close by 
(verse 29): “My Father which hath given them unto me 
is greater than all, and no man is able to snatch them out 
-of the Father’s hand,”—dquite parallel with those other 
words (vi. 37): “All that which the Father giveth 
me shall come unto me, and him that cometh unto 
me I will in no wise cast out.” 

Such a comparison as I have only outlined,strengthens 
the first impression, that what “know” means in John, 
“ foreknow” means in Romans, with the addition of “ be- 
forehand.” And “I know them,” in John means, obvi- 
ously, “I recognize them as my own.” Christ knows 
his own, as a shepherd knows every one of his sheep, as 
a mother knows her child, as brother knows brother, and 
friend friend. 

Is this foreknowing the same as foreordination? The 
answer from John is in the negative; for, besides the 
knowing, there is the giving by the Father. And such 
is the natural impression of Paul’s own words. “ Fore- 
knew” is the first link in the chain that ends with 
“ slorified.” 

Is foreknowing the sameas election? That depends on 


158 MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS VIII. 29 


what election is. It is not the same, if election is a part 
of foreordination. But if election means fixing the eye 
of recognition and love on each disciple, present or fu- 
ture, then this knowing, or foreknowing, is election. 

I am not discussing the use of γινώσχω in general in 
the New Testament. I will cite only two other passages: 
those judgment-words, “I never knew you” (Matt. vii. 23), 
where the meaning seems precisely the same as in John x. 
27, and “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 
ii. 19),—from the Septuagint of Num. xvi. 5—where the 
meaning is substantially the same. 

In Romans xi.2—“ God hath not cast away his people 
which he foreknew,”—the prefix “fore” seems to denote 
not “looking into the future,” but simply “before now,” 
the writer looking back into the past. “God hath not 
cast off his people which in time past, ever of old, he rec- 
ognized as his own.” He is unchangeable, and his past 
choice and purpose shall stand. 


XV 
PAUL’S ANATHEMA 


Ηὐχόμην yao ἀνάϑεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Rom. 
ix. 4. 

THE right explanation of Rom. ix. 3 illustrates more 
than one important principle of exegesis. One is this: 
Theological inferences are of no account against the simple, 
obvious meaning of a passage. The theological pressure 
on this passage is well expressed in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra for July, 1894: “The usual exegesis makes Paul 
willing. to be excluded from all hope of salvation, in- 
cluding not only endless suffering, but also positive enmity 
toward Christ forever” (p. 512). This consideration 
is made to support the rendering, “For I myself did 
wish to be separated from Christ,” the reference being 
to Paul’s life before conversion. 

Now against this pressure from without is the fact 
that the passage itself, if translated “I wished,” etc., is 
not a natural reference to Paul’s past life. He refers to 
that life more than once with a definiteness and warmth 
that leave no doubt as to his meaning. He could say, 
“T verily thought with myself that I ought to do many 
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. .. . 
Being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted 
them” (Acts xxvi.g,11). “Beyond measure I persecuted 


159 


160 PAUL’S ANATHEMA 


the church of God, and made havoc of it” (Gal. 1. 13). 
He could humble himself to say “that am not meet to be 
called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” 
(1 Cor.xv.g). It is incredible that such a bare, uncircum- 
stantial statement as is proposed,should be Paul’s confes- 
sion as a persecutor. The obvious impression is against it. 
No one would think of it except under outside doctrinal 
pressure. And for this obvious impression there are at 
least two distinct reasons: 1. The expression “anathema 
Jrom Christ” is appropriate only in the mouth of a 
Christian, or one who considers himself a Christian. It 
implies renunciation of Christ and banishment from him. 
2. The clause contains no adverb of past time which 
would make it read thus, “I myself once {ποτέ] 
wished.” “But,” one may say, “take heed to your 
grammar, and obey the imperfect tense, with or without 
ποτέ. Here appears a second rule of exegesis: 
Avoid what may be called a mechanical use of grammar. 
A sentence is not a piece of dead mechanism, grinding 
out its meaning by the levers and wheels of mood and 
tense; it participates in the life and flexibility and sen- 
sitiveness of the mind that produces it. Grammar is 
corrective, not creative; a good servant, but a_ bad 
master. Formal grammar is ultimately derived from 
the meaning, and not the meaning from grammar. 

All that has now been said implies, or half implies, 
that the theological pressure on this passage is valid and 
weighty ; but it is not. If it were, it would be one’s duty 
to resist it, but there is really nothing to resist. Bya 


PAUL’S ANATHEMA 161 


cool analysis some of us have found dreadful things in 
the passage, but cool analysis is here out of place. The 
words are a hot outburst of devotion and love. “Let 
Paul go down—down to everlasting destruction, if only 
Israel may be lifted up to salvation.” The apostle did 
not stop to measure his words, and we shall get his 
meaning not by picking away at the syllables, but by 
catching the spirit and feeling. “Was Paul then a Hop- 
kinsian, ‘willing to be damned’? Was he willing to be 
an enemy of Christ? Willing to sin forever?” No; if 
you speak of deliberate choice. But he was not express- 
ing deliberate choice, but the most undeliberate passion 
of love. The language of logic failed him, and the 
language of pain and agony took its place. “Did he, 
then, mean what he said?” Rather he meant what he 
felt. He did not mean all that we can possibly find in 
his words. He uncovered his throbbing heart; that was 
all, that was enough—too much for modern cool-headed 
analysis. We, then, see illustrated a third rule of ex- 
egesis, which may, perhaps, be expressed thus: Whena 
writer does not measure his words, the reader should not. 


XVI 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 

"Hy yeypapévov “Εβραιστί, “Ρωμαιστί, ‘Ekdnuoti. John 
xix. 20. 

THE following words are borrowed from the Latin :— 

᾿Ασσάριον. This was the only Greek word for the 
Latin as; the nearest coin-word in genuine Greek 
being ὀβολός. It is generally explained as a diminutive, 
with the suffix -apsov. If the a of its second syllable 
could be proved short, this origin would be indispu- 
table. In Smith’s Dictionary of Classical Antiquities the 
word is identified with an old doublet of as, viz., as- 
sarius. This seems the more probable origin, the neuter 
being used as in δηνάριον, because νόμισμα takes the place 
of nmummus. Certainly the two sigmas seem borrowed 
from the Latin, in which the s was regularly doubled, as 
in the case-forms of as, the verb esse, etc., to prevent 
the lapse tov. I see no reason in Greek phonology 
why the word should not have been ἀσάριον, if it is a 
hybrid diminutive. But aside from this, the earliest 
appearance in literature of ἀσσάριον suggests the very op- 
posite of /t#/e as. Dionysius Hal. (B. C. 30) says (Antiq. 
Rom. g. 27) that Menenius Agrippa, the Younger, was 
fined 2,000 ἀσσάρια, and adds ἦν δ᾽ ἀσσάριον χάλχεον νόμισμα, 
βάρος λιτριαῖον, i. e., the as Libralis, the “ pound as,” the 

162 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 163 


earliest and heaviest. Plutarch says (Camillus 13) that 
Camillus was fined 15,000 ἀσσάρια, which he explains as 
equal to 1,500 drachme; and Livy in stating the same 
fact (v. 32), gives the same amount in aes grave (—=as 
libvalis). Plutarch also uses the word in describing the 
home life of the elder Cato. Since both these writers 
were narrating ancient history, the old name assarius 
might have been found in their Latin authorities. In- 
deed, though used but little in extant Latin, it occurs in 
one of the grammatical discussions of Varro (L. L. ὃ. 
71), who was almost a contemporary of Dionysius. 
A century earlier Polybius speaks of the ἡμιασσάριον asa 
common price for entertainment at an inn, reminding 
one of the δύο δηνάρια of the Good Samaritan. It may be 
added that no reason is apparent for a diminutive mean- 
ing. If it had been of silver, like the Roman dela, 
which was an ἂς in value, but only 1-16 of its size, we 
should have a reason, but it was undoubtedly a copper 
coin; and though it had received at different times great 
reductions, yet, as I have said, ἀσσάριον was the only 
word used for whatever period. I have been unable to 
find an example, outside of the New Testament, where it 
was connected with current events. The as in New Tes- 
tament times was worth about 8 mills of our money. 
The English “happeny” would more nearly represent 
it than the “farthing” with which we now associate the 
sale of the sparrows. Matt. x. 29. Luke xii. 6. 
δηνάριον, Latin denarius, classical Greek δραχμή. 
This was equal to ten asses (dent asses), or sixteen cents 


164 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


before the as was reduced to its lowest value. In New 
Testament times it was equal to sixteen asses, or about 
thirteen cents. Thus the translation “six-pence” would 


“penny.” The denarius 


be more nearly correct than 
(from which comes the “d,” for pence, of English ster- 
ling currency) was a silver coin, bearing on one side the 
image of the emperor. Hence the question of Jesus, 
“Whose image,” etc. The pay of the common Roman 
soldier was ten asses a day after the as was reduced. At 
the accession of Tiberius (A. D. 14) the soldiers in Pan- 
nonia revolted, and, among other complaints, they said 
that “soul and body were estimated at ten asses a day,” 
and that out of this clothes, arms, tents, etc., had to be 
purchased. Their demand was, that “their daily wages 
should be a denarius” (i. 6... a sixteen-as denarius), 
although the pretorian cohorts, or imperial guards, re- 
ceived ¢wo denarii.* This will illustrate the wages in the 
parable of the vineyard. A penny, or six-pence, a day 
was enough for a full day’s work,and a generous gratuity 
for the last hour’s work. The word is found sixteen 
times in the New Testament. The unmerciful servant 
found one “which owed him an hundred pence,” Matt. 
xviii. 28. The householder “agreed with the laborers 
for a penny a day,” Matt. xx. 2,9, 10,13. The Hero- 

*Enimvero militiam ipsam gravem, infructuosam: dexis in diem assiéus 
animam et corpus aestimari: hinc vestem, arma, tentoria, hinc saevitiam cen- 
turionum et vacationes munerum redimi. At hercule verbera et vulnera, duram 
hiemem, exercitas aestates, bellum atrox aut sterilem pacem sempiterna, Nec 
aliud levamentum quam si certis sub legibus militia iniretur, ut singulos denarios 
mererent, sextus decimus stipendii annus finem afferret, ne ultra sub vexillis 
tenerentur, sed iisdem in castris praemium pecunia solveretur. An praetorias 
cohortes, quae dinos denarios acciperent, quae post sedecim annos penatibus 


suis reddantur, p!us periculorum suscipere?—Tacitus, Annals,i. 17, Ut denarius 
diurnum stipendium foret. i. 26. 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN. 165 


dians “brought unto him a penny,” Matt. xxii. 19; Mark 
xii. 15; Luke xx. 24. The disciples in the desert-place 
asked, “Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth 
of bread?” Mark vi. 37; John vi. 7. The ointment of 
spikenard “might have been sold for more than three 
hundred pence,” Mark xiv. 5; John xii. 5. One of the 
two debtors “owed five hundred pence,” Luke vii. 41. 
The good Samaritan “took out two pence,” Luke x. 35. 
A voice in Revelation said, “ A measure of wheat for a 
penny, and three measures of barley for a penny.” Rev. 
vi. 6. Plutarch uses δηνάριον, dpaypy, and δεχάχαλχον. 

Kevtuptwyv—Latin centurio, from centuria (centum-vir), 
a commander of a hundred men, acaptain. The regular 
Greek word is ἑχατοντάρχης or ἕχατόνταρχος, which 
latter word is generally used in the New Testament. 
Mark uses χεντυρίων. At the crucifixion we read of 
“the centurion, which stood over against him,” Mark 
Xv. 39; also verses 44, 45. The word is found in Polyb- 
ius. 

Kivoos—Latin census, originally the property-list of the 
Roman people,from censere, to rate; φόρος would be the 
regular Greek word. The examples of its use are, 
“What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of 
the earth take custom or “ribute?” Matt. xvii. 25. “Is 
it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not?” Matt. 
xxii. 17. So when Jesus said (verse 19), “Shew me the 
tribute-money,” they brought him a denarius; also Mark 
xii. 14. 

Kodpdvrns—Latin guadrans, from guatuor, four, i. e., 


166 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


the fourth part of an as; analogous to the English 
word with which it is translated, farthing, i. e., fourth- 
ing. “Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou 
hast paid the uttermost farthing,” Matt. v. 26. “ And 
she threw in two mites (λεπτά), which make a far- 
thing.” Mark xii. 42. | 

Kolwvia—Latin colonia, from colere, to cultivate, settle, 
occupy. The governments of the coloniae were mod- 
eled after that of the parent city Rome. MHence, ina 
colonia, Paul, as a Roman citizen, had a right to ex- 
pect fair treatment. Regular Greek word χληρουχία. 
“Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of 
Macedonia, and a colony.” Acts xvi. 12. 

Koverwédta— Latin custodia, originally a watching, then a 
guard, from custos, a guard. Regular Greek word φυλαχή, 
“Yehavea watch . . . sealing the stone and setting 
a watch.” Matt. xxvii. 65,66. “Some of the watch 
came into the city.” Matt. xxviii. 11. 

Acyew»—Latin /egio, varying in number from three thou- 
sand three hundred to six thousand two hundred. Reg- 
ular Greek word στρατόπεδον. “Shall presently give me 
more than twelve /egions of angels?” Matt. xxvi. 53. 
“My name is Legion, for we are many.” Mark v. 9, 15. 
Luke viii. 30. The word is used by Plutarch. 

Agvreov—Latin Linteum, a linen cloth, from num, linen, 
parallel with, or borrowed from, the Greek λῴον. Reg- 
ular Greek word γειρόμαχτρον. “He riseth from supper 
and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded 
himself.” John xiii. 4, also verse 5. 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 167 


Atrpa—Evidence is given in Liddell and Scott’s 
Lexicon that this is borrowed from the Latin bra. 
The substitution of τ for ὦ seems strange, but we may 
compare the formative endings, Greek and Latin, -zpov, 
-trum, -brum, -bra. The regular Greek is μνᾶ. “ Mary 
therefore took a pound of ointment,” John xii. 3; “about 
a hundred pound weight,” xix. 39. 

Méxehhov—Latin macellum, a meat-market,* plainly dis- 
tinguished from forum, the Greek ἀγορά. The word 
supplied a real need in Greek. “Whatsoever is sold in 
the shambles eat.” 1 Cor. x. 25. 

MepBpdéva—Latin membrana, a membrane, then parch- 
ment. Regular Greek d:giéoa,dressed hide. Περγαμηνή was 
also used, whence Latin pergamena and our parchment, 
the skin-paper originally from Pergamum. “And the 
books, but especially the parchments.” 2 Tim. iv. 13. 

Méihtov—Latin mille, for mille passuum, a thousand paces. 
Polybius, Strabo and Plutarch use the word, and there 
seems to have been no equivalent native Greek word. 
“ Whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him 
twain.” Matt. v. 41. 

Médvos—Latin modius, a peck-measure; unrepresent- 
ed in pure Greek, except so far as ἕχτος, sixth, i. e., 
sixth part of a medimmus, represents it. “ Neither 
do men light a lamp and put it under the dushel.” Matt. 
v. 15. Parallel, Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33. The modius 

**Venio ad macellum, rogito pisces; indicant 
Vitulinam, cetum, porsinam, cara omnia; 


Atque eo fuerunt cariora; aes non erat.’”” 
Plautus, Aulularia, Act ii., Scene 8, lines 3-6. 


168 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


was like our bushel in being the unit of measure, but 
with only one-fourth of its capacity. The translation 
“bushel” was perhaps more needed with “candle” than 
with “lamp,” when we consider the ancient form of the 
latter. Wyclif (Purvey) speaks of putting a “lanterne 
under a buschel.” 

Ξέστης, a corruption of the Latin sextarius, the s and 
x being interchanged, possibly under the influence of 
ξεστός, though & could represent ¢, as in ξύν. “Wash- 
ings of cups and fofs and brazen vessels.” Mark vii. 4. 
These pots were pint-measures. The Vulgate and Old 
Latin translated by wyrceus. Hill’s Tatian has “ meas- 
urés.” 

Ilpatdéptov—Latin praetorium, originally a general’s 
tent, later, the pretorian guard, and a ruler’s palace. 
From praetor. Nearest Greek word, αὐλή. “Then 
the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the palace.” 
Matt. xxvii. 27. “Within the court which is the Pre- 
torium.” Mark xv. 16. “Into the palace.” John xviii. 
28, 33; xix. 9. “Herod’s palace.” Acts xxiii. 35. 
“Throughout the whole Pretorian guard.” Phil. i. 13. 
᾿ “Pédn—Latin rheda, of Gallic origin, a four-wheeled 
carriage. The enumeration of the merchandise of Baby- 
lon includes “horses and chariots.” Rev. xviii. 13. The 
rheda was not what we understand by the ancient chariot— 
currus, and dpya—which was small, two-wheeled, and 
without seats, and used mostly in war. It was a roomy, 
comfortable carryall. 


Zixdptos— Latin stcarius, from sica,a curved dagger. The 


“ WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 169 


Romians considered the weapon unbecoming a gentleman. 
It was the badge of an assassin. Perhaps the nearest 
Greek word was σφαγεύς, butcher, cut-throat, but 
without the exact associations of sicarvius. It was a 
Roman officer that said to Paul, “ Art thou not then the 
Egyptian, which before these days stirred up to sedition 
and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of 
the Assassius?” Acts xxi. 38. 

Xiptxivdcov—Latin semicinctinm. The etymology would 
seem to indicate a narrow skirt reaching half-way 
round, and thus properly rendered “apron,” but there 
seems to be no other evidence that such a garment was 
worn. Martial has an epigram entitled “ Semicinctium,” 
in which the word is defined by praecingere,* where again 
etymology implies a fore-cloth, but the usage of the verb 
does not support the meaning. At Ephesus “unto the 
sick were carried away from [ Paul’s]| body handker- 
chiefs or aprons.” Acts xix. 12. 

Sovddptov—Latin sudarium, sweat-cloth, from sudor, 
sweat. Regular Greek word χαφιδρώτιον. The su- 
darium had as various use as our handkerchief, 
which means, literally, a head-cover carried in the 
hand. Napkin is early English for handkerchief. 
The Emperor Nero used to appear in public with a 
sudarium about his neck (Suetonius 51). “Lord, 
behold, here is thy pound, which I kept laid up in a 
napkin.” Luke xix. 20. “He that was dead [ Lazarus ] 


came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and 


* “Det tunicam dives; ego te praecingere possum. 
Essem si locuples, munus utrumque darem.”’—xiv. 153. 


170 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


his face was bound about with a zapkin.” John xi. 44. 
“Beholdeth the linen cloths lying, and the zapkin that 
was upon his head.” John xx. 6,7. “ Handkerchiefs 
and aprons.” Acts xix. 12. 

Xnexovkdtwp— Latin speculator, from speculari,originally 
a scout; under the emperors, a member of the body- 
guard, or adjutant. Regular Greek word σωματοφύλαξ. 
Herod, “the king, sent forth a soldier of his guard, 
and commanded to bring his head.” Mark vi. 27. 

Tithos—Latin ¢ztudus, an inscription. Regular Greek 
ἐπιγραφή, which is used both by Mark (xv.26), and 
Luke (xxiii. 38). John gives a precise and graphic ac- 
count of the inscription, mentioning its three languages, 
Pilate’s authorship of it, and his curt refusal to change 
it. The evangelist may have caught his Latin word 
from the lips of the Roman governor himself. “ Pilate 
wrote a ¢zt/e also, and put it on the cross. . . . This ζέζζο 
therefore read many of the Jews.” John xix. 19, 20. 
Suetonius—perhaps no earlier Latin author—uses ¢ztulus 
to denote the charge against a criminal. See two cita- 
tions (Caligula 32, Domitian 10) in Thayer’s Lexicon. 

Φαινόλης (φαιλόνης, geddvns)—Latin paenula, a woolen 
traveling cloak. The fashion of the garment was also 
borrowed, there being no exact Greek correspond- 
ence to word or thing. Xiapis is used by Matthew 
(xxvii. 28, 31) of the “scarlet rode” put in mockery on 
Jesus, while John (xix. 2) calls it ἱμάτιον, a word found 
much in the Gospels, and used in Plutarch for the 
Roman ¢foga. Paul in his last epistle writes, “ The clogs 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 171 


that I left at Troas with Carpus bring when thou comest.” 
2 Tim. iv. 13. It was quite consistent with his need of 
this warm over-garment that he should say (verse 21), 
“To thy diligence to come before winter.” 

Poayéditov—Latin flagellum, diminutive from flagrum, 
a whip. Regular Greek, μάστιξ, which is used Acts 
xxii. 24 and Heb. xi. 36. “And he made a scourge of 
cords.” John ii. 15. 

Ppayehk6w—Latin flagello. Regular Greek μαστιγόω, 
which is generally used in the New Testament. “ But 
Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified.” Matt. 
Xxvii. 26; parallel, Mark xv. 15. 

Xépos—Latin corus, caurus, the northwest wind. Reg- 
ular Greek ἀργέστης. The only occurrence of the 
word is in the account of the harbor Pheenix, Acts xxvii. 
12---λιμένα τῆς Κρήτης βλέποντα χατὰ λίβα χαὶ xata γῶρον. 
The common version translates “and lieth toward 
the south-west and wzorth-west.” The revised ver- 
sion has “a haven of Crete looking north-east and south- 
east.” This seems too much like trying to make the text 
mean what it ought to, according to the topography of 
the place; for the modern harbor opens towards the east. 
The rendering is warmly advocated in Alford’s commen- 
tary. The Revised margin has “Gr. down the south- 
west wind, and down the north-west wind.” Yet how 
can we believe that looking χατὰ χῶρον means looking 
with the dack to the wind? See examples from the Septua- 
gint in Thayer’s Lexicon at the end of βλέπω. + Ramsay 
says: “It must be observed that Luke never saw the 


172 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


harbor, and merely speaks on Paul’s report of the pro- 
fessional opinion. It is possible that the sailors de- 
scribed the entrance as one in which the inward-bound 
ships looked towards N. W. and S.W., and that in trans- 
mission from mouth to mouth, the wrong impression 
was given that the harbor looked N. W. and 5, W.”* 
Coneybeare and Howson say: “The difficulty is to be 
explained simply by remembering that sailors speak of 
everything from their own point of view, and that such 
a harbor does ‘look’—from the water towards the land 
which incloses it—in the direction of south-west and 
north-west.” Alford replies: “I cannot believe that even 
sailors could speak of a harbor as ‘looking’ in the direc- 
tion in which ¢Aey would look when entering it.” But 
suppose we let the sailors go, and think only of what 
Luke, a landsman, might mean by his language. A 
small harbor is like a fort. A fort faces not its entrance, 
but in the direction in which its protecting guns point. 
So a harbor might be said to front the waves and winds 
which it keeps off. Its entrance might be in the rear or 
at one side, anywhere except at the front. It is true that 
a town, or a single house, on the inner shore of a harbor 
might face the entrance, and the open sea, but whether 
this is true of the harbor itself would depend on its 
shape; and in the absence of any settled usage, Luke 
might naturally refer to its sheltering power, with no 
thought of its entrance. He would then mean “shel- 
tering from the S. W. and N. W. winds.” 


*St, Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen,”’ p. 326. 
T“Life and Epistles of St. Paul,” People’s Ed., p. 741. 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 173 


To the foregoing Latin words should be added a half- 
Latin, εὐραχύλων (Acts xxvii. 14), from εὖρος and Aguzlo, 
if that is the true reading instead of εὐροχλύδων ; also 
λιβερτῖνος (Acts vi. 9), unless both are to be taken as 
proper names. Some examples of Latin influence in 
meaning and phraseology may be found in Thayer’s 
Lexicon, Appendix, p. 693. 


REMARKS. 


1. The Latin words are twenty-six in number. The 
total number of words, exclusive of proper names, is 
about five thousand. When we think of the length of 
time during which the Greek-speaking world had been 
under the sway of Rome—from about a century and a 
half before Christ—we cannot but admire the power of 
literary resistance in the wonderfully self-sufficient 
Greek tongue, that Roman influence should force but one 
word in two hundred into this vocabulary. This im- 
pression is deepened by the small number of times each 
word is used. The following thirteen—xolwvia, μάχελλον, 
pepBpava, μίλιον, ξέστης, ῥέδη, σιχάριος, σιμιχίνϑιον, σπεχου- 
λάτωρ, tithos, φαινόλης, φραγέλλιον, χῶρος---αγῷὸ found but 
once. Of the rest, all but δηνάριον and πραιτώριον, are 
used from two to four times; but some of these are in 
parallel passages. . 

2. Classified grammatically, these words are all xoums, 
except one, φραγελλόω, which, indeed, is next door to a 
noun, being a denominative verb. This fact indicates 
that the reception of foreign words into the vocabulary 


174 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


was in an early stage. Nouns come in first. The purity 
of even Xenophon’s diction was not sullied by the free 
admission of such foreign substantives as παρασάγγης; 
δαρειχός, παράδεισος, and xzapnios. A new thing from 
abroad requires a new name, and none can be better 
than its own. The history of our own language is to 
the point. Back in the Anglo-Saxon we find nouns (but 
few verbs) from Latin and Greek, as, sacerde, pund 
(pound), myzster, mynet (mint); by and by comes in the 
flood of verbs, adjectives, adverbs, as well as nouns, and 
now and then a preposition and conjunction, until the 
only grammatical territory we have left without inva- 
sion is the narrow one of pronouns. One can appreciate 
the condition of our New Testament vocabulary in this 
respect by looking on into later Greek, and finding such 
words as these—zpatcevtos (Praesens), éxovivoss (eguinus), 
πραιπόσιτος (praepositus). 

3. Asto the meanings of these words, only one has 
reference to personal character, σιχάριος ; one to a vehicle, 
pédn; one to a place of trade, pdxeddov; one to the wind, 
χῶρος: two to writing, μεμβράνα, titdos ; four to measures, 
λίτρας μίλιον, μόδιος, ξέστης ; two to punishment, φραγέλλιον, 
φραγελλόω; three to coins, ἀσσάριον, δηνάριον, χοδράντης ; 
three to civil life, χῆνσος, χολωνία, πραιτώριον ; four to 
military life, xevrupiwy, χουστωδία, λεγεών, σπεχουλάτωρ ; 
four to articles of clothing and personal use, λέντιον, σιμι- 
χίνϑιον, συυδάριον, φαινόλης. It will be seen from this that 
the remark of Winer, in his Grammar, that the Latin 
words in the New Testament are “mostly substantives 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 275 


denoting Roman judicial institutions, coins, or articles of 
dress,”* needs considerable modification; not one of these 
words denotes a judicial institution, and those denoting 
coins and articles of dress are about a quarter of the 
whole number. Indeed, the absence of several Roman 
governmental terms is quite noticeable. Pontius Pilate, 
the procurator of Judza, is ἡγεμών, not προχουράτωρ 
(Matt. xxvii. 2); the judgment-seat is βῆμα, not τριβουνά- 
λιον (John xix. 13; Acts xxv. 6; Rom. xiv. 10, et al.); 
the colonial consul is στρατηγός, not χῶνσουλ (Acts xvi. 20) ; 
and his attendant lictor afdodyos—rod-holder—not λίχτωρ ; 
Claudius Lysias, the military tribune—modern colonel 
—is χιλίαρχος, not τριβοῦνος. All of these Grecized Latin 
names are found in later Greek, and three of them in 
Plutarch, who lived but a half-century after the apostle 
John. 

4. It may be well to distinguish the different wrzters 
of the New Testament in respect to the use of Latin 
words. Koverwédta and μέλιον are used by Matthew only. 
Κεντυρίων, ξέστης, and oxexovddtwp are used by Mark only. 
Instead of χεντυρίων,. Matthew and Luke always use 
éxatovtdpyns, or ἑχατόνταρχος. Kohwvia, σιχάριος, σιμιχίνϑιον, 
and γῶρος are used by Luke only. Δέντιον, λίτρα, ῥέδα, 
τίτλος, and φραγέλλιον are used by John only. Mdzeddov, 
μεμβράνα, and φαινόλης are used by Paul only. Ajveos, x0d- 
ρῥάντης, and φραγελλόω are used by Matthew and Mark. 
᾿Ασσάριον is used by Matthew and Luke. JZovddproyv is 
used by Luke and John. Acyedy and μόδιος are used by 


ἜΡΓ 103 (Thayer’s edition). 


176 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


Matthew, Mark, and Luke. δηνάριον is used by Mat- 
thew, Mark, Luke, and John. πραιτώριον is used 
by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. No Latin 
words are found in Hebrews, Peter, James, and Jude. 
The words are so evenly distributed, if we except Paul, 
that our most important inference is that there is nothing 
to infer. As to number, Matthew uses ten, Mark ten, 
Luke ten, John eight, and Paul four. The most marked 
case of difference between the evangelists is in the word 
χεντυρίων, Which is avoided by Matthew and Luke; by 
the latter both in his Gospel and the Acts. The subject- 
matter of Paul’s Epistles would naturally make the use 
of Latin words less frequent. 

5. Let us now, for the sake of a little comparison, 
take just a glance into the pages of a secular writer 
of the Roman period. Polybius, born about 200. B. C., 
was both the first and foremost Greek writer of this 
period. Notwithstanding his experience of the iron hand 
of Rome, he became, under the fostering friendship of 
the younger Scipio, anardent admirer of Roman institu- 
tions, and made it the great task of his life to compose 
the history of Rome. His subject would be likely to 
bring in all the Latin words which a legitimate vocab- 
ulary would allow; yet the consul is called ὕπατος (or 
στρατηγός, as in the New Testament; in which, also, we 
find ἀνϑύπατος, for proconsul (Acts xili. 7, et al.)); the lic- 
tor, ῥαβδοῦχος ; the military tribune, χιλέαρχος ; the tribune of 
the plebs, δήμαρχος ; the censor, τιμητής ; the questor, ταμέας; 
the legion, στρατόπεδον; the senate, σύγχλητος or συνέδριον, 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 177 


not σενᾶτος, as in Plutarch. ‘Two.of the New Testament 
Latin words,—yéhtoy and xevtvpéwy,—and perhaps others 
of them, are in Polybius; but with χεντυρίων is found also 
ταξίαρχος ; and other designations of officers are duplicated, 
as dexddapyos and δεχουρίων, ὕπαρχος and πραίφεχτος. In- 
deed, in the case of one word, which must have been 
very suggestive to Polybius and his Greek compatriots, 
—Atxtdtwp,—we can almost trace its progress into the 
vocabulary. In the narrative of the Second Punic 
War, the author states that the Romans had come to 
need a general with unlimited powers—avdroxpdtwp 
στρατηγός. In the next chapter he states that they 
appointed Quintus Fabius Διχτάτωρ, and goes on to ex- 
plain the powers of this extraordinary officer. The 
Greek of Polybius, like that of the New Testament, was 
slow to admit the vocabulary of the Romans. 

6. This discussion points to the gexuizneness of the Greek 
of the New Testament. Latin words so few, so unim- 
portant, and so seldom used—and that too in circum- 
stances where they would be likely to be used—-indicate 
that the writers of the New Testament could “speak ~ 
Greek.” But there is another conclusion, of a more 
special character. The Latin element of the New Testa- 
ment vocabulary indicates the early composition of the 
books of the New Testament. The Roman period of 
Greek literature extends from 146 B. C. to 330 A. D.; 
but for the New Testament it would be more fair to 
substitute 60 B. C. for the former date. Our Latin test, 
then, would place these books early in the period thus 


178 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


limited. Their Latin is more like that of Polybius than 
it is like that of Plutarch even. Plutarch uses zdyoovd, 
hiztwp, tptBodvos, sevaros, ἤδιχτον, πατρίχιος, Attvov; besides six 
of the New Testament words—dacdproyv, δηνάριον, λεγεών, 
λίτρα, μάχελλον, μίλιον. 


PROPER NAMES. 


The following is alist of proper names, with single 
references. A few, as ‘Pwyy, first appear in literature 
in a Greek dress, but must have come from Roman lips. 

"Aypinnas, Agrippa, Acts xxv. 13; “Apriias, Amplia- 
tus, enlarged, Rom. xvi. 8; ᾿Αχύλας, Agutla, eagle, 
Acts xviii. 2; "Axziov Φόρον, Appit Forum, Forum of 
Appius, Acts xxviii. 15; "Azgia, Appia, Phil. 2; 
Αὔγουστος, Augustus, reverend, Luke ii. 1; Ταλλίων, 
Gallio, Gallic, Acts xviii. 123; δΔρούσιλλα, Drusilla, dim- 
inutive of Drusus, Acts xxiv. 243; Εὐραχύλων, Huro-aguzlo, 
northeast wind, Acts xxvii. 143; Jovdta, Julia, feminine of 
Julius, Rom. xvi. 153 “Jobieos, Julius, Acts xxvii. 1; 
᾿Ιουνίας, Junia, youthful, Rom. xvi. 73 ᾿Ιοῦστος, Justus, 
just, Acts i. 23; ᾿Ιταλία, Jtalia, Acts xviii. 2; Katoap, 
Cesar, long-haired, Matt. xxii. 17; Καισάρεια, Caesarea, 
Cesar’s city, Matt. xvi. 13; Kiquéia, Claudia, limping, 
2 Tim. iv. 213 Kiaddtos, Claudius, limping, Acts xi. 28; 
ἤλήμης, Clemens, kind, Phil. iv. 3; Κορνήλιος, Cornelius, 
Acts x. 13 Kobapros, Quartus, fourth, Rom. xvi. 23; 
ἤρήσχης, Crescens, growing, 2 Tim. iv. 10; ἤρίσπος, 
Crispus, curly-haired, Acts xviii. 8; Διβερτῖνοι, Libertine, 
freedmen, Acts vi. 93 Aotxos, Lucius, day-light man 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 179 


(Zux), Acts xiii. 13 Mdpxos, Marcus, hammer, Acts xii. 
12; Νίγερ, Viger, black, Acts xiii. 1; Odpfavds, Urbanus, 
city-man, Rom. xvi. 9; Παῦλος, Paulus, little, Acts xiii. 

7; 93 Πίλατος, Pilatus, javelin-man (p2zdum), Matt. xxvii. 
2; Πόντιος, Pontius, bridge-man, Matt. xxvii. 2; Πόπλιος, 
Publius, the people’s, Acts xxviii. 7; Πόρκιος, Porctus, 
swine-man? Acts xxiv. 27; Ποτέολοι, Puteolz, little wells, 
Acts xxviii. 13; Πούδης, Pudens, modest, 2 Tim. iv. 21; 
Πρίσχα, Prisca, old, 2 Tim. iv. 193 Πρίσχιλλα, Priscilla, 
diminutive of Prisca, Acts xviil. 2; ‘“Podgos, Rufus, 
red-haired, Mark xv. 21;‘Pdépy, Roma, Acts xviii. 2; 
Σεχοῦνδος, Secundus, second, Acts xx. 4; Σέργιος, Sergius, 
Acts xiii. 73; Σίλας, Szlas, shortened from the following, 
Acts xv. 223 Σιλουανός, Szlvanus, woodsman, 2 Cor. i. 

19; Σπανία, Hispania, Rom. xv. 24; Τέρτιος, Tertius, 
third, Rom. xvi. 23; Τέρτυλλος, Tertullus, Acts xxiv. 13 
Τιβεριάς, Tiberias, city of Tiberias, John vi. τ; Τιβέριος, 

Tiberius, Tiber-man, Luke iii. 13 Τίτος, Zztus, 2 Cor. 
ii. 133 Τρεῖς Ταβέρναι, Tres Tabernae, three shops, Acts 
XXVili. 153 Φηλιξ, Felix, happy, Acts xxiii. 243 Φῆστος, 
Festus, feast-day, Acts xxiv. 27; Φορτουνάτος, Lortunatus, 
fortunate, 1 Cor. xvi. 17. 

Of this array of names the Christian mind dwells 
longest on one which, as we have it in English, hardly 
suggests a Roman origin, but is really a famous name 
in Roman history—lUadijos. From the time of the 
Christian Fathers to the present, conjecture has done its 
best to answer the question, Why did Saul assume the 
name Paulus? and this in spite of the fact that it is no- 


180 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 


where affirmed that he d#d assume it, instead of receiv- 
ing it from his father when he was “ free-born.” The 
Greek text gives us the least possible information on this 
point. Σαῦλος δέ, ὁ xat Παῦλος (Acts xiii. 9) is all. If he did 
not get the name from his father,some have thought that 
he did from the proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus; 
others from his being /7¢t/e of stature; others from his hu- 
mility, he being, in his own estimation, “the eas? of all 
saints.” If his father named him Παῦλος, we can imagine 
two or three good reasons. 1. It was an honored name. L. 
ZEmilius Paulus honored it at Cannz, to whom Horace ap- 
plies the phrase azimae magnae prodigus ;and the conquer- 
or of Macedonia, the father of the younger Scipio, sus- 
tained well the honor of his ancestor. 2. It was a name 
well known in the East. The Paulus last mentioned 
bore as his agnomen “ Macedonicus,” and did more than 
any other one to make Greece a part of the Roman 
world. 3. It resembled Saul more than any other 
Roman surname; and yet we cannot tell which name of 
the two was first decided upon. But whether any of these 
reasons are valid or not, the appearance of this name 
at the beginning of Paul’s apostolic life justifies us in re- 
garding it as his distinctively Christian and missionary 
name. Ramsay, under the heading “Saul, otherwise 
Paul,” while courteously deriding Weizsacker for re- 
garding the two names as a sign of double authorship of 
the Acts, remarks, “ Amid the conflict of the two religions 
before the Roman governor, Paul stepped forward in his 
character of citizen of the Empire.” (St. Paul, εἴς. p. 


WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 181 


85.) He illustrates Paul’s names by the custom among 
certain non-Greek races of having two names, one native 
and the other Greek. “The role he was playing for the 
time being determined which name he was called by.” 

One might expect many Latin names in the greetings 
of an epistle to the church at Rome ;but of the twenty-six 
who are greeted in the last chapter of Romans, only 
seven—Prisca, Aquila, Junias, Amplias (-atus), Urbane 
(Urbanus), Rufus, and Julia—bear Roman names; while 
four such join in the greeting—Lucius, Tertius, Caius 
(Gaius), and Quartus, 


XVII 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 
Td λεγόμενον ‘Efpaiort. John v. 2. 

THE great number of Old Testament proper names 
thrust upon New Testament Greek—a large proportion 
without inflection—give a Hebrew coloring to the text far 
beyond what comes from the legitimate vocabulary. The 
first chapter of Matthew, and the third of Luke, and, 
elsewhere, such unconformable words as ’Afpadu ᾿Ισαάχ, 
᾿Ιαχώβ make one feel that grammatically the Old Testa- 
ment is going rough-shod over the New. But these 
names do not correctly represent the case. In studying 
the borrowed vocabulary we may set aside proper names, 
and two other classes; (1) those words which are quoted 
as from a foreign language, and translated, (2) those 
Semitic words which are found also in the classical 
period. It may be well, however, to mention the words 
of these two classes, though they are ruled out. 

Those of the first class are the following: 

’"Ehoi— Aramaic TIN, for the Hebrew 998, from ON, 
God, with the suffix. —, my, “My God.” Mark xv. 34.* 

‘Eggaid—Aram. ΠΝ, imperative middle from AAS, 
to open; “ Be opened.”? Mark vii. 34. 

"Hit—See ’Ehwi above. ‘*My God.” Matt. xxvii. 46. 

Kodp:-—Hebrew, 0. imperative feminine, from Dip 
to rzse. ‘*Arise.’? Mark v. 41. 

182 


WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 


Λεμά, Aapa—Heb. Γ, from the preposition 4 Sor, 
and may what. ‘**Why?’’ 

SaBaySavi—Chaldee, Nsw, second person singular 
from )3Y, fo leave, with the verbal personal suffix 9}—, 
me. With Aapa, above, ‘‘Why hast thou forsaken me?”’ 
Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34. 

TahvSa—Aram. NID, ‘‘damsel.’? Mark v. 41. 

The words of Semitic origin which are found also in 
the classics are the following (the Hebrew word being 
annexed as the best accessible representative of the Sem- 
itic original): 

᾿Αῤῥαβών---Ἴ DY, earnest-money, from 2}. to pledge. 
Hence the Latin arhabo, arrha, and rhabo, found as early 
as Plautus. This word is found three times in the New 
Testament, used by Paul; “ Aarnest of the Spirit.”2 Cor. 
i. 223 ἡ. 5. ‘‘Harnest of our inheritance.” Eph. i. 14. 

Βύσσος---- δ, from a root meaning white. ‘*Was 
clothed in purple and fixe linen.’’ Luke xvi. 19. ‘*Mer- 
chandise..... of pearls and five linen.’’ Rev. xviii. 12. 

Κάμηλος--- 52. a camel, Used of the raiment of John 
the Baptist (Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6), and in the sayings 
about going through the eye of a needle (Matt. xix. 24; 
Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25), and swallowing a camel. 
Matt. xxiii. 24. 

Κωνάμωμον--- 33}, cinnamon. “No man buyeth.... 
cinnamon and-odors.” Rev. xviii. 13. 

Κύμινον--- 23. cummin. “Tithe of mint, anise, and 
cummin.” Matt. xxiii. 23. 

Λίβανος-- [2 Srankincense, from 127, to be white. 


phanipbond di: 
Sica iron Ἢ 


184. WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 


‘(Frankincense and myrrh.” Matt. ii. 11. ‘*No man 
buyeth....frankincense and wine.” Rev. xviii. 13. 

AtBaywrtds—derived from the preceding, is found in 
Herodotus in the same sense, but is used in the New 
Testament in a different sense. - “ Holding a golden cen- 
ser.” Rev. viii. 3, 5- 

Σάπφειρος ---Ὑ 5, sapphire, from “DD, to scrape. **The 
second [ foundation was | sapphire.” Rev. xxi. 19. 

Συχάμινος.-- ΓΦ: a sycamore tree. ‘*Ye might say 
unto this sycamine tree.” Luke xvii. 6. 

*Yoowrxos—JYN, hyssop. ‘Put it upon hyssop.” John 
xix. 29. ‘Scarlet wool and Zyssop.” Heb. ix. 19. 

To these ten should perhaps be added ἄλφα, FON (Rev. 
i. 8, τι; xxi. 63 xxii. 13), and ἰῶτα, "“1), ‘*jot” (Matt. 
v. 18). 

Dismissing now the words thus enumerated, we come 
to those which are introduced by the writers without an 
avowed translation, and which are not found in classical 
Greek. The translations are from the common version. 

’Agpa—Aramaic NBN, corresponding to the Hebrew 
DN, father. ‘‘And he said, Adda, Father, all things 
are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me.” 
Mark xiv. 36. ‘*Ye have received the spirit of adop- 
tion, whereby we cry, Adda, Father.” Rom. viii. 15. 
‘“God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into 
your hearts, crying, Adda, Father.” “Gal. iv. 6. It 
will be seen that “ἀββᾶ, πατήρ" are always joined to- 
gether, and one might say at first glance that the latter is 
simply a translation; but this is quite inconsistent with 


WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 185 


the spirit of the second and third passages. Paul would 
hardly recommend a lesson in translation as a cry of filial 
love. ‘*Abba, Father” means more than ‘‘Father,” and 
why, if not from association with those words in Geth- 
semane, some of whose very syllables passed from heart 
to heart, and were preserved for us by the faithful and 
exact Mark? A Greek-speaking Jew, if he chose to re- 
tain ἀββᾶ, would naturally add πατήρ, especially if in the 
anguish of the hour the ἀββᾶ were twice repeated. It 
would appear, then, that in the account of Mark πατήρ 
is virtually a translation, but that the two words, once 
joined, represented ever after the tenderest and deepest 
filial spirit. Luther’s “ Lieber Vater’’ was not far from 
right. 

"Ady hobia— Hebrew rym 5, from 57, pratse ye, 
and rm, a shortened form of Jehovah or Yahveh— Praise 
ye Jehovah. This word occurs four times,and in the book 
where we look for the fervor of ancient prophecy and 
psalm. “I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, 
saying, Ad/leluia.’’ Rev. xix. 1; alsoin verses 3, 4 and 6. 

"Apuyy—Hebrew fON; jirm, from TON; to support. Used 
often by our Savior, as reported by all the evangelists, 
as an adverb of affirmation, “verily,’’ duplicated by John 
only, “ Verily, verily,’’—once by Paul inasimilar sense, 
“For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him 
Amen.” 2 Cor. i. 20. Used, according to the textus re- 
ceptus, many times as an exclamatory prayer, “ Amen”; 
but in a majority of cases the reading is disputed. 

Bdatos—(masculine), Heb. 3, α bath, a liquid meas- 


- 


186 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 


ure of about eight and one-half gallons. Used only once. 

“How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, A 

hundred measures of oil.” Luke xvi. 5, 6. 
I'éewa—Heb. p3q7j, valley of Hinnom, from δ 3, 


valley, and 37, Hinnom, a valley on the south and 


west of Jerusalem in which was Topheth (2 Kings xxiii. 
10). This word is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 
James, as follows: “In danger of fed/-fire.” Matt. v. 
22. “Whole body should be cast into hell.” ν. 29, 
also verse 30. “Destroy both soul and body in hell.” 
x. 28. “Having two eyes to be cast into hedl-fire.” 
Xvili. 9; also Mark ix. 47. “Two-fold more the child 
of hell than yourselves.” xxiii. 15. “How can ye 
escape the damnation of el/?” xxiii. 33. ‘*Than hay- 
ing two hands to go into ἀεί." Mark ix. 43. “Than hav- 
ing two feet to be cast into Ael/.” ix. 45. “Fear him 
which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hed/.” 
Luke xii. 5. “115 set on fire of Zel/.” James iii. 6. 
‘Efpaicrti—from éfpaitw, to speak Lebrew, from By, 
Eber, Heber; a word used by John only. “Called in the 
flebrew tongue, Bethesda.” John v. 2; also xix. 13, 17, 
20; Rev. ix. 11; xvi. 16. The words ‘Efpaixés, “Εβραῖος, 
and ‘Efpats may be classed as proper names. 
Tovdai~w—from TT, Judah. Used only once. “Why 


compellest thou the Gentiles Zo dive as do the Jews ?” Gal. 
li, 14. 

Tovdaixds—from the same through “Jovdaixds. Used 
only once. “ Livest after the manner of the Gentiles and 
not as do the Jews.” Gal. ii. 14. 


OO νοις τ ν , 


WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 187 


᾿Ιουδαϊσμός----ἔτοτα “Jovdaif~w. Used twice. “My con- 
versation in time past in the Jews’ religion.” Gal. i. 13. 
“And profited in the Jews’ religion.” i. 14. Iovdaizds 
and *Jovdatos may be classed as proper names. 

Κορβᾶν, xopBavas—Heb. emp an offering; used over 
seventy times in Leviticus and Numbers, in our version 
‘‘offering’’ or ‘‘oblation,” Septuagint, δῶρον. The in- 
declinable form χορβᾶν is translated by Mark, but Mat- 
thew uses χορβανᾶς without explanation. Each is used only 
once. “It is not lawful for to put them into the ¢veasury.”’ 
Matt. xxvii. 6. ‘*But ye say, If a man shall say to his 
father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift.”’ 
Mark vii. 11. 

Képos—Heb. “5, α cor (translated ‘‘measure’’ in our 
version, 1 Kings v. 11), a measure equal to ten baths. 
See βάτος, above. Used only once. ‘*And how much 
owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of 
wheat.”? Luke xvi. 7. 

Mapwvas~—Chaldee, 835923. Alford quotes from Augus- 
tine,‘*‘Lucrum Punice mammon dicitur.’’ Used four times. 
“Ye cannot serve God and mammon.’’ Matt. vi. 24. 
‘(Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unright- 
eousness.’’ ‘‘If, therefore, ye have not been faithful in 
the unrighteous mammon.’’? ‘*Ye cannot serve God and 
mammon.’’ Luke xvi. 9, II, 13. 

Mévva—Heb. 9%, a resinous manna, to which the mi- 
raculous manna undoubtedly bore some resemblance (Ex. 
xvi. 15). Used four times. ‘‘Our fathers did eat 
manna in the desert.’? John vi. 31; also 4g. ‘*Wherein 


188 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 


was the golden pot that had mazna.” Heb. ix. 4. “Τὸ 
him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden 
manna.” Rev. ii. 17. 

Μαρὰν 45¢d—Aram. ΓΝ, ¢o come, and mAh or NIT; 
Lord. The Lord comes. Used only once. ‘‘If any man 
love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema 
Maran-atha.” 1 Cor. xvi. 22. | 

Πάσχα, Heb. ADD, the Passover, from FID, to pass over. 
This word is used in each of the four Gospels, referring 
to the literal festival, it being always translated in our 
version ‘*Passover”; also once in Acts xii. 4, where it is 
mistranslated (to modern ears) ‘‘Easter.” It is found 
also in the two following: ‘For even Christ our Pass- 
over is sacrificed for us.” 1 Cor. v. 7. ‘*Through faith 
he kept the Passover.” Heb. xi. 28. 

Προσάββατον, from σάββατον. See below. Used once 
only. ‘‘Because it was the preparation, that is, the day 
before the Sabbath.” Mark xv. 42. 

“Ῥαββί, Heb. 935, from 34, great man, master, and 
suffix "- my. Used frequently in the Gospels, not in 
Luke. ‘And to be called of men Raddz, Rabdz.” Matt. 
xxiii. 7. ‘*‘Then Judas which betrayed him answered 
and said, Master, is it I?” Matt. xxvi. 25. Nine 
times it is in our version ‘‘Master”; at other times 
‘‘Rabbi.” It is translated “ Διδάσχαλε᾽" once by John (i.39). 

‘PafBouvi—perhaps not differing in meaning from 
Rabbi. Used twice, being translated by John, but used 
by Mark without explanation. ‘‘The blind man said 
unto him, Zord, that I might receive my sight.” Mark 


WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC ι8ὃ9 


x. 51. ‘*She turned herself and saith unto him, Rabboni, 
which is to say, Master.” John xx. 16. 

‘Paxd—Aram. Xp"), corresponding to the Heb. Pr, 
empty. Used only once. ‘*Whosoever shall say to his 
brother, Ataca, shall be in danger of the council.” Matt. 
V. 22. 

Σαβαώδϑ----] 60. ΓΊΝΩ ν, of hosts, the genitive plural being 
transferred to the Greek. Used twice, the first being a 
translation from the Septuagint of Isa. i. 9. ‘‘Except 
the Lord of Sadaoth had left us a seed.” Rom. ix. 29. 
“ The cries of them which have reaped have entered into 
the ears of the Lord of Sadaoth.” James v. 4. 

Σαββατισμός, from σαββατίξζω, from σάββατον. See the 
following. Used only once. ‘*There remaineth there- 
fore a rest to the people of God.” Heb. iv. 9. 

2é8Barov—Heb. DW, a Sabsath, from MQW, to rest. 
Used often in the Gospels and Acts, and in the follow- 
ing: “ Upon the first day of the week let every one of you 
lay by him in store.’? ; Cor. xvi. 2. “Οἱ the new 
moon or of the Sadéath.” Col. ii. τό. 

2érov—Aram. NOND, Heb. FIND, a seah,adry measure 
of about a peck and a half; ; in our version simply ‘‘meas- 
ure.” Gen. xviii. 6. Used twice. ‘‘Leaven which a 
woman took and hid in three measures of meal.” Matt. 
xili. 33. See Luke xiii. 21. 

Xixepa—Heb. DY, intoxicating drink, from 2U, to be 
drunken. (“Do not drink wine nor strong drink.” Lev. 
x. 9.) Used only once. ‘‘Shall drink neither wine nor 
strong drink.” Luke i. 15. 


190 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 


Χερουβέμ, Xepovfes—Heb. 3495, cherud, plural 0°15, 
cherubim. Used only once. ‘‘And over it the cherubim 
of glory.” Heb. ix. 5. 

‘Qcavéd—from Heb. NJ Twin, save now, from pe, 
to be safe, and δ, ow, a particle of exhortation. (“ Save 
now, I beseech thee, O Lord.” Ps. cxviii. 25.) Used 
three times by Matthew, twice by Mark, and once by 
John, all concerning one occasion. ‘*The multitudes that 
went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna 
to the Son of David.” Matt. xxi. 9. Not used by Luke 
or other New Testament writers. 

To these should perhaps be added ζιζάνιον (Matt. xiii., 
seven times in the parable of the tares). 


REMARKS. 


1. The Hebraistic character of New Testament Greek 
does not come largely from its Hebrew words. The 
word which makes the strongest impression upon the 
cursory reader is "Ay7y, especially as solemnly reiterated 
in John’s Gospel. But this in the Gospels is given as 
the utterance of one who spoke in a language foreign to 
Greek. It is also exclamatory, and on its face bears evi- 
dence of being but imperfectly incorporated into the vo- 
cabulary. The same may be said of ἀββᾶ, ᾿Αλληλούϊα, 
χορβᾶν, μαρὰν aid, ῥαββί, ῥαββουνί, ῥαχά, σαβαώδ,, γερουβίμ, 
and Ὥσαννά. Several are found only once, βάτος, ᾿Ιουδαΐξω, 
᾿Ιουδαϊχῶς, xdpos, papdy abd, προσάββαπον, paxd, σαββατισμός, 
σίχερα, and γερουβίμ. 

The only words which occur with any frequency, and 


WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC ΙΟΙ 


which have in all respects the treatment of native words, 
are yéevva, and σάββατον; but the former is used but once 
out of the first three Gospels. These borrowed words, 
then, go but a little way in revealing the presence of 
Hebrew influence. Yet they are a convenient starting- 
point for investigation, and their existence makes certain 
a multitude of Hebraisms, of a less obtrusive character, 
consisting of changes of meaning in single words, and 
the adoption of Hebrew constructions and phraseology. 

2. How many of these words are found in the Sep- 

tuagint, including the Apocrypha? ‘There are sixteen, 
viz., Addnhodia, ἀμήν, βάτος, ᾿Ιουδαΐξω, "lovdaixds, ᾿Ιουδαϊσμός, 
χόρος, μάννα, πάσχα, προσάββατον, σαβαώϑ, σάββατον, σάτον, 
σίχερα, χερουβίμ, and the proper name Γ.αιέννα, used in Josh. 
XViii. 16, asa strictly geographical designation, for which 
elsewhere is found φάραγξ Εννόμ (Josh. xv. 8)and yé Βενεννόμ 
(2 Chron. xxviii. 3). The originals of these are pure 
Hebrew. Of the remainder the following are from the 
Aramaic: ἀββᾶ, μαρὰν ἀϑά, ῥαχά, σάτον, and probably ‘Qcava, 
for the Jewish multitude in employing this word seem not 
so much to be quoting from the Psalms as using a familiar 
interjection. 

That no more of these words are found in the Septua- 
-gint is what we ought to expect; for the language of the 
New Testament is not a book-dialect made up by stu- 
dents of the Septuagint, but the genuine speech of the 
people, growing by adopting new forms, as ἀββᾶ, or 
taking a word of narrow meaning and expanding it 
to reach beyond this world, like γέεννα. 


192 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 


3. It should be noticed that but few of these words touch 
important doctrine. Six are titles of respect or expres- 
sions of emotion, ἀββᾶ, ᾿Αλληλούϊα, ἀμήν, ῥαββί, ῥαββουνί, 
ῥαχά, and Ὥσαννά. Three are measures, βάτος, χόρος, and 
σάτον. Seven are purely historical, ‘Efpaieri, ᾿]ουδαΐξω, 
᾿Ιουδαϊχῶς, ᾿Ιουδαϊσμός, προσάββατον, σίχερα and χγερουβίμ. 
Five are used in the enforcement of duty, χυρβάν, μαμωνᾶς, 
μάννα, μαρὰν add, σαβαώὠώϑ. "ABBA, πάσχα, σαββατισμός, and 
σάββατον have doctrinal reference, but not prominently ; 
thus leaving γέεννα as the one doctrinal word, standing 
out in awful distinctness as the word of doom. 

4. A word in regard to the presence of Hebrew and 
Aramaic words in other late Greek writers. Josephus 
uses βάτος, ᾿]ουδαΐξω, ᾿Ιουδαϊχῶς, χορβᾶν, xdpos, μάννα, πάσχα, 
σάββατον, σάτον, and γερουβίμ, besides others not found in 
the New Testament. The words which have gained cur- 
rency by association with the life of Jesus we should not 
expect to find in Josephus. The Greek Christian Fathers 
took up and bore on most of them in a course that has 
reached our day, ἀββᾶ, ᾿Αλληλούϊα, ἀμήν, γέεννα, χορβᾶν, 
μαμωνᾶς, μάννα, πάσχα, σάββατον, χερουβέμ and ‘Qcawd. 

5. Almost all of the personal names are, of course, 
found in the Old Testament, the most notable exception 
being ᾿Ελισάβετ (Elizabeth). Two precious names, ᾿]ησοῦς, 
Mapia, do not at first glance show their Hebrew origin. 
Joshua, or Jehoshua, in its later form is Jeshua, or 
Yeshua. Remembering that sk must be represented in 
Greek by o, and long u by ov, we have Jycova, which 
by partial inflection becomes ᾿Ϊησοῦς. The name Mapia, 


WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 193 


Maria, is curiously set off by an unphilological imagina- 
tion in the Latin Hymns as derived from mare, the sea, 
— “Ave maris stella.” But we must rather identify it, 
as its other form Mapiap shows, with the Miriam of the 
Red Sea song, even if her name does mean “ rebellion.” 


The Miriam is lost in the Mary. 


XVIII 
WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 


THAT the New Testament,as late Greek, should contain 
many unborrowed words not used in the classics is a mat- 
ter of course. A valuable discussion of many of them 
and of the period is found in Kennedy’s “Sources of 
New Testament Greek.” There is a complete list in 
the Appendix to Thayer’s Lexicon, Sections I. and IL., 
Aristotle being included among classical writers. A 
nearly complete list is in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July 
and October, 1880, containing also the number of times 
used, and the words in the common version to translate 
each. 

The following are some points of interest: 

1. The number of these words is large, about nine 
hundred in all, exclusive of proper names—amounting to 
one-sixth of the whole vocabulary. The interval of time 
between the classics and the New Testament is not much 
greater than between the Elizabethan literature and our 
own. What would a literary critic say of a book, ora 
series of connected booklets, of to-day, every sixth word — 
of which—-repetitions not being counted—could not be 
found in Bacon or Hooker, or Spenser, or Shakespeare, 
or the contemporary English Bible, or in any earlier 
writing?—this book not to be special or technical, but 
designed for general popular use, and the new words to 


194 


WORDS NOT. FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 195 


be not borrowed from any foreign tongue during the last 
three hundred years. Our literary condition in this re- 
spect we account for by the printing-press, by the per- 
manent interest of subject-matter, by creative genius, by 
the unity of our history, and by the reading-habit and 
linguistic study of modern civilization. Aside from the 
absence of modern conditions, both the newness and the 
nativeness of New Testament Greek can be explained 
by (1) the genius of the Greek language, growing by 
self-multiplication, (2) the break of continuity in Greek 
life, (3) the wide extension of Greek thought under 
Roman rule, and (4) the influence of Jewish thought cen- 
tering in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. 

2. In regard to the etymological character of these 
words, they are, with very few exceptions, derivatives or 
compounds, and from roots found in the Greek classics. 
Nor are many of them at all obscure in origin. The.re- 
lation of the noun ἀγάπη to the verb ἀγαπάω may be 
thought doubtful, but the connection of the two is not.. The 
verb is used from Homer down to New Testament times. 
The first appearance of the noun in literature is in the Sep- 
tuagint. How came it there? Deissmann has shown* that 
the word was in some use in Egypt independently of the 
Septuagint. As a rule, verbs in -éw imply nouns in -ἢ in 
actual use, but it is extremely improbable that ἀγάπη 
could have been in general use so long without once ap- 
pearing in the remains of the classics. It seems to have 
been latent in the verb. In general, among nouns the 


*Bibelstudien, p. 80, Marburg, 1895. 


196 WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAI. WRITERS 


large proportion of the heavier suffixes, as -yos (29), -μα 
(44), -σις (51), will be noticed, just as in English -zess and 
-shtp. have now a vigorous life at the expense of the 
lighter abstract endings; for word-making is a more 
conscious and obtrusive process as language grows older. 
The verbs are largely denominatives, but more largely 
multiplied by composition with prepositions, all of 
which are represented, except ἀμφί and els. The adjec- 
tives arise mostly from composition, the frequency of 
av- privative being noticeable, just as the English com- 
pounds with wz- are constantly increasing. Without dis- 
cussing this subject, we may safely assert that etymolog- 
ically these words, as a class, are above reproach. The 
zeal of a Phrynichus may pronounce some of them “ shock- 
ingly un-Attic”—éewds dvdrtxov—(and is not the charge 
true of his own expression?) but we must remember that 
those ancient-modern grammarians decided according to 
usage, not science. Words which to their ears were as 
painful as our present vocabulary would have been to 
Chaucer, may vet be accepted by us as belonging to the 
regular development of the language. The adverb πάντοτε, 
for example, was an offense to them, but seems so suit- 
able and regular that we can hardly believe that we never 
saw it in classic authors. The reforming grammarians 
were determined to have the language both alive and dead 
at the same time. It has been said by later author- 
ities that many of the compound verbs in the New 
Testament are nowise different in meaning from the 
simple verbs. But we should be slow to make a charge 


WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 197 


against New Testament Greek which could be perhaps 
equally well sustained against the Latin of such a master 
of style as Cicero. A mere increase of volume ina 
word may be made expressive. Then, too, the very 
nicest distinctions are next door to no distinction at all. 

3. The rhetorical value of these words varies much. 
Some of the compound words have been thoroughly 
endorsed by modern usage, as ὀφϑαλμοδουλεία, δίψυχος, and 
the compounds with dya%o-, dytt-, ἕτερο-, and ᾧευδο-. 
Καρδιογνώστης, λογομαχία, paxpodvpia, and. ϑεοδίδαχτος, are 
certainly clear and full of meaning, and the list of like 
words could be greatly extended. What Greek word 
has rhetorically a better right to exist than otvpuyos? 
Is it not finer than the corresponding Latin cox-cor-s, 
which may possibly have given rise to it? (Did Paul 
coin the word? and did he learn Latin at Rome, where 
the epistle containing this word was written?) But few, 
we think, can be condemned, as perhaps μοσχοποιέω, and 
some other verbs in -éw, while of course a large majority 
are neither above nor below the ordinary level of expres- 
sion. : 

4. How about the doctrinal and practical importance 
of the words? It is not to be expected that the founders 
of a new religion would endanger the communication of 
their truths by the needless employment of new words. 
The old words must first bear all the strain that they are 
capable of. The idea of God required no new word, 
and even the two words for Godhead, ϑειότης and ϑεότης, 
are each found but once. The word ϑέλημα for βουλή, 


198 WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 


seems rather a matter of habit than necessity. Yet 
it is not without significance that we find such words as 
ἀποχάλυψις, ἀπολύτρωσις, ἁμαρτωλός, ἱλασμός, ἱλαστήριος, 
παλιϑγενεσία, ἀφϑαρσία, and the five from ἀγαϑός, as well as 
βάπτισμα, βαπτισμός, βαπτιστής, and other words of almost 
technical import. Perhaps the most remarkable of all 
are two which stand at the opposite poles of Christian- 
ity—the words for Jove and comscience. For love we 
find, never ἔρως, but always ἀγάπη; not amor, but carttas. 
Thatovvetdyors is not found in earlier Greek is not due to 
the absence of the idea of conscience, for that idea is 
expressed by verbal forms of συνοῖδα, but may possibly 
come from reluctance to form a verbal noun from an 
irregular preteritive verb, or, more probably, from less 
call for the use of such a word. One must be careful 
not to infer too much from the appearance of a new 
word. ἘΣ, g. δεισιδαιμονία is late Greek, but its immediate 
parent δεισιδαίμων is in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia; and μαϑη- 
tedw is late, but μαϑητής is common in classical times. In 
many cases the most that can be inferred is that the word 
is the result of greater prominence of the idea, or more 
frequent use; but very often this would be saying too 
much, there being nothing to it, but etymological conven- 
ience. Each case must be determined on its own merits. 

5. Ihe large number of these words found in the 
Septuagint is a matter of course—three hundred and 
sixty-three in all, of which, however, eight are used only 
in express citations, viz., αἰχμαλωτεύω, ἀνάβλεφις, ἐλαττονέω, 


ἐνευλογέομαι, κατάνυξις, xatTagpovntys, παραπιχρασμός, φρυάσσω, 


WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 199 


The proportion, two-fifths, will not seem large when 
we consider the relation of Christianity to Judaism. 
The New Testament diction is not a servile copy of that 
of the Septuagint. Even such words as εἰδωλολατρεία, and 
μαϑητεύω, are not found in the latter. A large propor- 
tion of the most striking compound words of the 
New Testament are also absent. δΣυνείδησις occurs but 
once in the Canonical Old Testament (Eccl. x. 20), and 
then with a different meaning (“Curse not the king, 
no, not in thy thought [}12}}. What the proportion 


might have been if the Septuagint had not been re- 


stricted by being a translation we cannot know. That 
this translation is of great value in interpreting the 
New Testament will not be denied by any one. 

6. It would be interesting to compare the different 
authors and books of the New Testament, in respect to 
their use of late words. Let us glance at one book, the 
one that stands first in order among the Epistles in 
Tischendorf’s edition, and which, according to some 
scholars, is the oldest of New Testament writings—the 
Epistle of James. As this is the only book that can with 
confidence be dated at Jerusalem, and as the author, 
whichever James he was, probably never went beyond the 
boundaries of Palestine, we should expect the widest 
divergence from classic Greek. Going through the 
Epistle in order, we meet with late words as follows: 
Chap. i, διασπορά (vs. 1), πειρασμός (2), ἀνεμίξω (6), δίφυ- 
χος (8), καύσων (11), πειρασμός (12), ἀπεέίραστος (13), ἀποχυέω 
(15), ἀποσχίασμα (17), ἀποχυέω (18), χτίσμα (18), περισσεία 


200 WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 


(21), πραὔτης (21), ἐπιλησμονή (25), ϑρῆσχος (26), χαλινα- 
γωγέω (26), ϑλίψις (27), ἄσπιλος (27). Chap. ii. προσωπο- 
λημφία (1), χρυσοδαχτύλιος (2), ὑποπόδιον (3), προσωπολημπτέω 
(9), ἀνέλεος (13), ϑυσιαστήριον (21). Chap. ili. χαλιναγωγέω 
(2), σπιλόω (6), πραὕὔὕτης (13), χαταχαυχάομαι (14), dxatac- 
τασία (16), ἀνυπόχριτος (17). Chap. iv. μοίχαλις (4), 
ὑποτάσσω (7), ἐγγίξζω (twice) (δ), χαϑαρίξω (8), ἁμαρτωλός 
(8), δίψυχος (δ), ἐνώπιον (10), χαύχησις (16). Chap. ν. 
σητόβρωτος (2), xattow (3), ἀφυστερέω (4), σπαταλάω (5), 
μαχροϑυμέω (twice) (7), also (8), ἐγγίζω (8), paxpodvpia 
(10), πολύσπλαγχνος (11), οἰχτέρμων (11), ἐξομολογέω (16), 
ἁμαρτωλός (20). Here are fifty-two instances and forty- 
two different words. This is much above the general 
average. Of these forty-two, twenty-nine are found in the 
Septuagint, very greatly above the average proportion. 
It is not difficult to see in this preponderance of the Sep- 
tuagint vocabulary the position of the author as an un- 
traveled Jew writing to Jews. 

The number of late words grouped together in some 
passages of the New Testament is noticeable; perhaps 
in no case more so than in the Lord’s Prayer. Both 
Matthew and Luke have ἁγιάξω, ἐπιούσιος, and πειρασμός ; 
Matthew has also ϑέλημα. 

7. A practical inference is derivable from the fact that 
the late words are formed from the words of the classical 
period. The one sure and solid preparation, then, that 
the student needs is a mastery of his Greek classics. Itis 
possible for one who is-looking forward to the ministry 
to flatter himself ,that he may neglect his college Greek 


WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 2ΟΙ 


without much harm to his future course, because the 
New Testament Greek is peculiar. It will, indeed, 
seem peculiar to one who enters the theological seminary 
knowing little of any Greek, and his own performances in 
it still more peculiar; but one who can read at sight the 
pages of Xenophon’s Memorabilia will find that none of 
his knowledge is wasted when he opens the Memorabilia 
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 


INDEX ES. 


-],—-G ENERAL INDEX; 


PAGE. 

Abba Father, meaning of............0000.00. ieee UEOS 
Acts, revision of by Luke, 131; without Preface, 

peecomes- nO word for νὰ τἰς ke eee ewes [19 


Adjectives in -αἴος, how formed and their meaning.. 67 
‘Ayardw, meaning of compared with that of φιλέω 115-126 


Classical usage..... ye Neer ye reais farang Magee ὅν Τοῦ 117 
Septuagint usage..........cee008 Genesee g es eases 117 
New Testament usage.............. ARPES EE a 118 
ΝΕ τ ei ad og Wis VW Nt on spies ego's 120 
Alford on the rendering “Evil One” in the Lord’s 

ΝΠ eee CPSU SUG LES AS eae beeeR So 85 
Alford on the rendering “age” instead of “stature” 

ΟΝ BI ahaa wlese'e oon aah SN ἐὺ ee 107 
Alford on the interval between the writing of Luke 

and Acts..... PR ES Teer AE ἡ ν ὙΠ Ὺ g 135 
τ on the “Haven of Crete”. 50. ot. cic cece ce 171 
ΠΟΙ Η life, the exegete’s interest 1ἢ., .. 6 ὁ ὁ. ν νιν 14 
Apocalypses, extra-canonical, value of...........-. 22 
Aramaic, was it used in the dialogue in John xxi... 122 
Aramaic, Paul’s use of..........++ vee Ἐπ᾿ χὼ Sse te oe 
Aristotle’s use of ἀγαπάω and gtiéw........ ees cue et Ske 
Arnold, Matthew, on the Gospel of John.,........ 24 


Article, Greek, absence of in Luke ii. 14.......... 57 


294 GENERAL INDEX. 


Atonement by self-revelation. ...........++..+.152-154 
Augustine, St. τοῦ πονηροῦ in the Lord’s Prayer..... 91 
Aurelius, M, Antoninus, his “ Thoughts”......... 18 
Ballantine on ἀγαπάω and φιλέω...... 6... cece ee ee LI5-117 
Barnabas, Epistle οἷ... 003 ἀν ss3 008 eto sles 
Bengel On ἡλιλέαε 6. 6 oie ios 4 νον os aioe ξοους 5 5a ok 
Beza’s rendering of τοῦ πονηροῦ in the Lord’s Prayer 92 
Bezal codex as representing the unrevised Acts .... 131 
Bibliotheca Sacra referred to.......8, 115, 154, 159, 194 
Bi-lingual speech of the Jews.........ceeeeeeeee- 81 
Birt on Aoyos, meaning book. ..........ceeeceeeees 134 
Blass on Acts as revised by Luke..............+-- I31 
Blass on the text of Acts xxvi. 28........0.eeee0-++ 150 
Book-list for New Testament students ............ 43 
“Book of the Secrets of Enoch”. ......-cscccesceses 22 
Burton on the Historical Present...........2+.... 127 
Calvin 9 cetoteog, «5 ςν ὁ ἐς ce’ 00nd «shennan eee 
CEASE OU CRIMI nice keke ρει eRe eel ......77-70 
Chase on the rendering “Evil One” in the Lord’s 
PERVEN με ἐξ ενκάκξενενε sas o's wee see. 34-86, 88 
_Clementine Homilies, their use of 6 xovypdés........ 93 
Commentaries, how to use them............++++0+ 42 
Concordances, value of........ οὐ quasars) fo eh wg 
Concrete and abstract in the New Testament....... 85 
Coneybeare and Howson on the “ Haven of Crete”.. 172 
Consistency, liberal application of in exegesis...... 33 
Cremer’s Lexicon on εὐδυχίας,. .. 9... cece cece eee 80. ΝᾺ 
τ: τὴ ON. CRAVE 5 ςς οἰκο κα ο 3 4 000 
. = on tod πονηροῦ in Matt. xiii. 38.... 98 
Cureton on the origin of éreodotog.. 1... ++ eeeeeee-+ 66 


GENERAL INDEX. 205 


Perey in the Lord’ Prayer ss οὶ υςοὺςεενοιζοξον 88 
Deissmann on the Egyptian use of ἀγάπη .......... 195 
I ρει νι εξ eds 113 
NIN, ACRE νπιιτειῦες basi ee ξεν εν 308 85 105 
EN OSE 2 Ce ee ae a ea ae 137-144 
ag gx pcb hoes wi το desde cto bs o'sce xs 22 
πρὸ 6... 2 εἰ εγελνιεοννν yas eas 18 
Dion Cassius, his use of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω.,........ 117 
SS Σου νου er PEC ἐν pe 18 
ee hE Ge Se SAA Gt ύνις ἐόν νον ὃς 145 
‘Hitxta, does it mean “stature” or “age” in Matt. 
ME GaN puget ew νόμους ἐν 2 soles dee sos 105-110 
Ephrem, Syrus, referred to by Chase............. 79 
ΠΝ τ ah, 55600 eka va ss ig ood eke ee es 18 
‘Exiobetog in the Lord’s Prayer........ 060i νν νόος 58-83 
43 history of its interpretation............. 58-66 
s etymology and meaning. .......50i 66805 66-73 
> renderings of in early versions,......... 73-83 
Ernesti on émotbcrosg... 2. eee ees ME DER S ghee νει 64 
Paeraa mite, appointment tow: iid cies νιν ἐνὶ γερο 145 
Evil, or Evil One in the Lord’s Prayer.......... 84-104 
Evil One (6 πονηρός) not the usual term for Devil in 
fae iNew ‘Teatament jo. i. 6 τι ρει νῶ Seago 
Exegesis, methods of .........000208< Os dip ste ite 39-45 
32 Peinciples Of 6.0.65 6668 es SW uv τ 25-38 
se PANE Ms «W's Wy a wo did Coes νει Raid dce'e 27-28 
" primary and secondary......... ssesees 28 
τὰ has no conflict with science............. 37 
- POUNCE POISE 5 is ρον εν onan οι 39 


of other books than the New Testament.. 47 


206 GENERAL INDEX. 


PAGE. 
Exegesis requires easy sight-reading. .... os seh eau 19 
Exegete, qualifications of \..0.5. 05.45.3550 ΟΝ 11- 25 
Hxtra-canonical. writingS......3..0.s002s0000 eae 22 
Familiar passages, exegesis of....... be ae 44 
Feeling an important element of meaning, 26, 29, 33, 161 
Foreknowledge and foreordination............. 155-158 
Gloria in Excelsis discussed, ............0. 00.4 
Gothic rendering of érrobsotos 0.0 i νος ts ς eee 73 
Graramar,’ proper use of. 2. .5 .... esc tes oes Se 45, 160 
Greek classics, knowledge of necessary............ 16 
Greek Fathers, ‘value of τιν ΟΣ Sie 22, 92-96 
“on τοῦ zovpod in the Lord’s Prayer... ΟἹ 
Greek; post-classical ¢:0.5 0.000 60.03 442s eee ΠΝ 
Greek Psalters, light from them on Luke ii. 14.... 52 
Guardian, The, referred to...... Ἀπ. 8ο 
Hades in the New Ταεβίδμηθηΐ,... «0... ον οοο νον 137-144 
Hadley on the speech of the Jews..........+: sean ee 
ΒΗ Isaac: ΗΠ ς ἐξ σους da a's bees Se ee ee via ee 
“ on the Syriac masculine used for the abstract 90 
Harmony, two methods. of: 054.05 ἐς δυο ς ΜΕΝ 37 
Feb ΔΙΒΕΙΒ. οὐ εν το εν ἀφ τὴν toe) ya pee ὁ ὁ δ ΘΕ 
Hebraism, is there one in Luke ii. 14?.......... 5° 
Hebrew and Aramaic, words borrowed from., ae 193 
Hebrew as illustrating ἐπιούσιος. . 2... ee eee © eeialdial teanan 
Hebrew words in the. Septuagint..............02- 191 
Fierodotus, ise Of FUE. saci e ee ee se ee eee » 105 
ρον ἔπ πιρίρεϑρν cis bse es fae ase ae τος 
FAN'S Datian σον ὃς Nee CRS οι τς ἐν ΣΦΕ 
Historical Present in the Gospels............... se ARF 


# “ as indicative of authorship...... 128 


GENERAL INDEX. 207 


PAGE. 

History, faculty for in the exegete............00+. 14 
Human nature, knowledge of in the exegete........ 15 
Hypotheses, value of in exegesis wet e ee cence eeeee 45 
πε τον 6b bcalc s Weel seb adsdcveneces ak tae 
ΠΟ ΟΣ WOFKS. 4... 56s ee dgaeed ais se voce Ga ee 
Imagination in exegesis..........2. ceceeeceees 39, 46 
Impressions, first, why of value............00000- 32 
τς ΘΟΕ ΟΝ ΠΡ δι ἐν πε teas ne 26 
ΝΞΞΕΕΕὌρΊΊΤἘτΤυ-- το Roi aero ere εν ιν, ¢ 2 Κήν. 27 
James, Epistle of, use of late Crack Re ghis okra τοῖς νὸν 199 
πο OAD δνιρύσίος,., iv cc siecle waseceseseds ον 60 
Jerusalem Syriac, rendering of ἐπιούσιος.. . . «Ὁ νον ον 80 
Jesus, origin of the name....... ehaidawaielh venceaes hoe 
Jewish Prayer-Book referred to......... slew e ew 3h ROS 
Joba, quality of his Greek...... hinted we eM ἐν νον . 124 
duplication of words.........esceecee oosI2I, 124 

“ use of the Historical Present............ jen 329 
“use of ἀγαπάω and githéw,........ Seed ERD eae 121 

re pprruee of, use of 6 movnpds.. cee eceee eR 

ες “ dyandw and giléw........ i ee 
Josephus 19, use of Hebrew words.............6- 192 
Kennedy’s “ Sources of New Testament Greek”.... 194 
Latin, words borrowed from...............08: 162-181 
Paeemumber Of...:..,.- Sa eae oe ea a eaeae a a ὅν, 293 
Oe re errr es tere tree rere 174 

“ 868 by different New Testament writers .... 175 
NN go 0 aaa eer ones ἰνίον 176 

τε mterences: fromr.,...5... ae τ φν ἐδ ὼς δὼ δ eae 

ε Proper names ae Peres tare εκ Los Vater eee 


Lexicon, how to use PE Se 8S SOS Φιφίδ'᾽ 4 OS OS BG @eevsees? ae 2h. 42 


208 GENERAL INDEX. 


PAGE. 
Lightfoot, Bishop, on étobctog........++--65,67, 69, 70 
Ἢ OM TOR ROVYIOG 658 8 SS 3 τ δι 84 86, 89, 91, 101 
Literary features of the New Testament........... 25 
Literature, knowledge of in the exegete...... Bee P 
Logical power of the exegete,...... Terre 
Lord’s Prayer, ἐπιούσιος in... see eee cesses cenegeean 
" τοῦ πονηρόν IN... «0.0 cece .....84--104 
ρὲ in Aramaic and Greek........ ign oe 
abridged by Luke............. ae 
¢ late words in.........3., vee Σ ΩΣ .. 200 
Ἰνοῖδη, use.Of ἡλικία, ee... τῶν ον eee bee τῶν os ey 105 
Luke, does his Preface to the Gospel belong also to 
ENA PACE eG νυν yin sets t soles ics eee 130-136 
Luke, use of 6 πονηρός, 993 of ἀλάλάν and φιλέω, 119; 
rare use of the Historical Present......... AP ey, 
Mark, use of ἀγαπάω and gihéw..... cee cece ccc eces 119 
“ free use of the Historical Present ....... eee 127 
Mary, origin of the name...... Ἔν... 193 
. Matthew, use οὗ ἀγαπάω and φιλέω....... «Ὁ νον νον ees 119 
᾿ use of the Old Testament............. 37-101 
bs use of the Historical Present............ 127 
Meaning made up of thought and feeling....... cp eee 
$ not limited to the apprehension of first 
hearers: iiss ἐλ ει SEES Ὁ 9.5 οὐ τον ΣῊ 29 
τ expansion Of 3 κως εξ ςεςες ἐφ grew ΝΟ δ 
Meyer on τὸῦ πονηροῦ in the Lord’s Prayer......... 85 
6 ON ἡλαιάς τις bESENS ODES SES οι ὃ 
Meyer, Leo, on émodowg......... SS Ss. γύρο. Ὁ 
Moods and physical condition....... ceecece ve ps ee 


Murdock’s Peshitto Syriac.......... cee yews. eae 80 


GENERAL INDEX. 209 

PAGE, 

New Testament diction, its relation to the classics 16, 200 
¥ not a mere copy of that of the Septua- 

Rant. Ss ιν γὴν Nate ail wnereiaie 20, 191, 199 

$ TRCNROC YOU μον Hei. εὐνόι κ αν ts secere wees 194 

Old Testament, its help in New Testament exegesis 21 

εἰ quotations from, how to interpret ..... 37 

πα τ TNE, in ExXeGesis 2. vices se vececccess II 

Origen on émodcws.......++.. RMN Tek Moise  ὠννν ary Ὁ 58 

meee, NOW explained. 4:06 66s5 νον νον οὐ νον meine 35 

faut, origin Of his name, .. .issecsecsces Se ye ms 179 

“use of ἀγαπάω and gtifu..........- Dale a shh iv. 120 

“speech in Aramaic.........++.5.. ee ara Ah 81 

Peter’s dialogue with Christ in Aramaic.......... 122 

Philo... DRS saul Us ciclo ἐ wee seers acne neh's 18 

ΘΝ wetters Of, 5.0.2... 50- VnVavadeke Oy Reims 13 

Plutarch, value of ......... Pi ildslbtiwes Ap pr ete Ps 18 

> ΠΝ λα τ ἀρ δον how χὰ esee cies 105 

᾿Ξ eee Rit νυόξα δες ον one wt eee Pree. 

Polybius, 17; use of Latin words. ............-00- 176. 

Power οὗ a writing......... che eae kw abs We ah ee 32 

Prayer and exegesis ....... οἷο ρον ἐξΦ γιατ ὦ nineties 40 

Probation and salvation ......0.+-+00. MORES RT te 146 

Problems, exegetical...... owl ebb weeny salary: Udon ΕΝ ΠΕΡΎ wale 45 
Ramsay’s “St. Paul, the Traveler and the Roman 

EMO Sy coreit sasmalorouteues siewedinoeita aoe Ὁ μὰ ον 1ᾶο 

Ramsay on τὸν πρῶτον λόγον: .. νὰν ς cece eneceesees 135 

> on Phoenix harbor..... Ra i EAR Se abe ayaa 171 

Pel On “acl otherwise Fay νυν ον τρώγω 180 


Resurrection of the wicked. ..c00 s:cesvesisiecsscoes 142 
MUMMIER@CEION CYR: 5. o)0:4:0.0:0:s'0's ad νυ ων eecavee*? 2? . 143 


210 GENERAL INDEX. 


PAGE. 


Revisea Version referred to, 49, 76, 83, 84, 97, 98, 
125, 147, 152, 171 


Rhetoric in the New Testament.......... oe eee 33 
Routine and monotony, to break up.......... «+244, 47 
almaAsiNG On Extobowws., 665i Vs ves ous Veo seen 5p ky ΒΡ 
Salmon on the authorship of Acts.........20000+4. 130 
Satan seldom mentioned in the Old Testament ..... 101 
Sensitiveness to language. ..........2.000800% nigeeee 
Septuagint, value of νος ον υ bes seens ewes teem 20 
τὴ use OF πονηρόν: ον oa Gh eed sts ed ΟΥΤΩΣ 100 

+ OF HAG Fics Se EG τος ... 105 

Ὁ of ἀγαπάω and gtléw.......-000. seen tke 

τ of Hebrew and Aramaic words ,,.. I9gI 

- of words not in the classics........ 198 
Shedd quoted....... Peeteerr rector Tris ΤΟ sews 
Side-light of another language ............. os eave aa 
Silence of New Testament writers..... οὐ ὠς ΝΥ 47 
Similes in the New Testament............. ovine eRe 
Sleeping disciples, Christ’s words to..... ery 
Solitary work in exegesis..........cccccceeees view 84 
Spirits. ta prisons ss ite oe ἐ ἐγ ευνυδανα “ον δ ων 141 
ΘΡΙ Δ᾽ 5..9οεέε» δοολέοϊεὝεαι. ες ἐς τως ..24.130 
Sympathy with the writer........ ἐν οὐ 13, 40 
Syriac, need ὍΣ, eves vaetee's et ae Peer 
kbs, Old, Gospels. . ἐνὸς so2 0600 s0005s0s cen 
ON ἐπιούσιος ........- αν. ὃ 

“ on τοῦ πονηροῦ in the Lord’s Prayer........ 90 

rast; POM λυ τας ΡΣ aoe ee oe wea οὐ ae 


“ rendering of ἀγαπάω and grddw,.... 0000004 122 


Syriac, Peshitto, value of..............2. Ee 


GENERAL INDEX. 211 


; PAGE 
Syriac, rendering of ἀγαπάω and gthew.........+04. 123 
Sects reretred ον eee lk nee sp Ey 164 
Talmud on τοῦ πονηροῦ in the Lord’s Prayer........ 102 
Tatian’s rendering of émrodbotos.. 2. eee eee ee eee 79 
ἐφ OL YAIR lve eke ως AS ee ee 110 
Taylor, Charles, on Tatian, 80; on τοῦ zovypod ..... ΟἹ 
πον ἐγ οἰδῖν, νον 005 plied των oo aes ἐνῶ: apie 23, 26 
Thayer’s “ Books and their Use”. ............006- 43 
hi Ἐπ κισση ον τοι εὐὐυβενορς κὰν 66, 171, 173, 194 
Theological inferences in exegesis... 2... cece ce oe 159 
Tholuck on ἐπιούσιος. . 0.00000. Peres ss oo Ree 63 
χε, το το cals oa) ἀρ Clee Pee PENAL ὅσον 
Times, The, relation to New Testament language... 25 
gy TR's Baa τον ον τον νος ἀμ ξὐφῥὺξοεςφ κὰν ὯΝ 
Traditional ᾿πἰογργείδι 8. Ὁ ον νον ον σν ον σον eevee ae 
Trench on ἀγαπάω and giléw........05- ἐξ eee eS 
Usage, different kinds and value.......... ema enon ae 
“ distinguish poetic and prose........... gale LO 
Vincent’s “ New Testament Handbook”......... Fees 
Vischer on Revelation...... Pera one ΕΣ A PA AN erage εὐ 28 
Waiune for light) 055i. 6.i 06. Fea ek bi ord wee! Sw ae 44, 47 
Wendt’s “ Teaching of Jesus” i... νννςν «οἷο, ἐς ese e ae 
WRESICOLt NG POT ck hic dee ees πον τυ 23, 49 
Winer on émodotog........ Wea Pe arated pues 67 
Woolsey on ἀγαπάω and ihe: Gein Pee ete x I15, 122 
Word-consciousness slight in New Testament...... 27 
WOR -BtUGY ΠΥ ΝΗΝΥ τ ωπον cas che ewe’ 41 
Words, differences in... 6500 kek eae ἘΣ koe 106 
isd relation to general drift ........ Se cee Ag 30, 31 

[1 


δῦ ον, ον. τὺ νυ εἰ νον πέος ΨΚ 21 


212 GENERAL INDEX. 


PAGE. 
Words not in classical writers........... ss eee 1Q4-201 


“ number of, 194, etymological character of 195, 
rhetorical value 197, doctrinal importance 
197, found in the Septuagint 198, in Epistle 


of James 199, in the Lord’s Prayer ...... 200 
Wratislaw on ἐπιούσιος. 2... ce ee eee ee ΡΥ ς τ᾿ . 69 
Xenophon’s use of the Historical Present.......... 128 


Zockler on the revised Acts.... ....... 


““ΞΣ΄ ay ae 


11.-- Ν ΡῈΧ oF GREEK WorpDs. 


PAGE. 

ΘΝ τος sas SOR 
ἀγαθο--. ce cceeeccecers 197 
ἀγαπάω. ......... ...115-126 
vo ag εν το ςς. 20, 195, 198 
OC. ERs ee er 20 
EM ide os mi. av 20 
eg ant ee δτιμο 140 
νου νον εν νον 67 
a ar 41 
PS - 185 
Po aera s hcoia i ΤΣ . 184 
προ Disa isin less dig se μὲ 89 
ἀχαῤχωλόφοι «0.0... 20, 198 
OPER ak ed adios .» 185, 190 
ΡΥ μον Pee Pees 20 
CT [3 2) 0002 ὁἐὼώὶ 176 
ORI iis ss cn ose wissen 
WN ip ἐών νος 80 
eres πο ἀδιβοιζς sae 85 
ἀποχάλύψις. ..............0. 198 
ἀποχύτρωσις.............. 198 
ποι, ΠΝ 183 
ΟΝ γ.. 0 na 4b verbs 162 
νος os p58 ko 198 
βάπτισμα -μός -τής..... 198 
νους ἐς Sean Peper 185 
δοκοῦ αι μων τὰ μῶν  RYS 
πε αι ,ως 197 
MOE ἐς το pute bue 183 


pEevva.. soe 004.186, 191, 192 


213 

PAGE. 
OOtMOVLOV. . ees eccccees 113 
δεισιδαιμονία... τος eee 198 ° 
ROVE RION ἐν wow iaweic ἐν ἐν we 163 
διάβολος ........ 20, 89, 97 
ον bi seats sins’ « Hs 132 
POUT ON ies osee ΟΝ 177 
POY τρῶν shea 197 
δ ρη τε Svcs veins 186 
ἀϑελοῤσιος,., λον. ων eer aes 70 
εἰδωλολατρεία...... ... «ὦ. 100 
WRU tie pk κω ΟΝ 20 
We earca: balm int τον τ 85 
δε, oss cs CaaS 20 
at i Oe Roe are Paci 174 
POMS ig hake BES 79 
RGAE C is Fs rs oye tok 192 
SP MALION Ais oie ἀρ athe 150 
ἐπιοῦσο ἡμέρα......... 69 
ἐπκεούσεος. 6 ui eee eho e 58, 83 
BROLIN OE ins hahaa τὰ 20 
ἐργασίαν dodvat........ 147 
GROSS Sisco cb ate hone 198 
TOUR 55 a) tad Φ ΘΕ ΈΛῚ, 15 53 
WOON GS ss isle os bw χὰ 49-57 
MPPOXOMOD hoo cients 173 
BUIMELOS y o's oo sue νι 75 
δηνξηδ  ω  μενμ 8 20 
δ αν ον, νοι τ κων 190 
πο εν εν ἐκ ὼ aca gees 20 
τών μαι ae 


PAGE. 

GAG. ivy τ ἐν aor »..105-110 
Θειότῃς, θεότης......... 197 
θέλημα Qi 5 sone aS rales 197 
OeodtOaxt0s ..... 22000 197 
IGOR εν, ον oie 8 192 
ἱλασμός, --tHptos.. .. .. 198 
᾿Ι]ουδαίξω, --tx0s....... 186 
ODOMIO NOG vin ἐ ιν ως 187 
FUE Gaia ei ik whore lores 184 
BOARS 66 p Se at eK 89 
pple. Sie cdey ied bas 183 
χαρδιογνώστης.. .. +... 197 
LOVEDALOD δ 3.5 wig sejareias ἃ 165 
WEIRD Si Sas die © vhs να 165 
XWVELWPLOV. .ccceecee ce 183 
ROOPAVTNHG svc 42 "ον ἐφ 165 
MORI τον τῶν ἀνθ ss 166 
KOPAO ς νον νους oe Oy 
MOPOG oF bias 8 ν τὰν SO ROD 
ROGHOP 5 ae 6 snip ecto 27 
ROOTTORES νος Overs see 166 
MUO. S25 eek les 183 
OR Sines br1h oe Sa 20 
WRIDY 6d. 9:5) wc0ld, Since. oy £66 
γένειον οὐ ως δεὶ το Sein ROG 
ἀϊδάνοῤιι κεν φὰς ἘΠῊΝ eS 
Pave TO Sos asin veh a0 TOA 
AtPEPTVOS το κου τον τυ 178 
RCA ς δες Ries νος AO 
Aoyopayla. suse veseess 197 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS, 


PAGE. 
ἀύγος ες ss Ce ense 19, 20, 134 
λυτρόω...... τ 20 
μαθηζεύως, ἐν ....-- 198, 199 
μάκελλον. τὸ ἐν περ ΕΝ 167 
MAXPOOVMIA.. . ἐτοῖν τας τ 197 
μαμωνᾶς. τος τὸς ΕΝ 187 
μαννα, «°C as eee 187 
μαρὰν- θαι γι ant tae 188 
Μαρίᾳ, ς τον 4 «tense 192 
μεμβράνα, . .s. «i.e 167 
FU—GANG. oe eee os 87 
PERCOY τιον sen ΟΝ 167 
μόδιος Ae ΟΣ 
μοσχοποξέω . oo. ΘΟ 197 
ξέστηφ. ......ωὄ0ὸ τ 
ὀλίγως....- ccesecssee ESO 
ὅσος. ον beens ess eee 
ὀφθαλμοδουλεία ....++4+ 197 
παλινγεσία ws eseeeeceee 198 
πάντοτε... sv 0 «οὐ οδδς νυ ΝΟΣ 
παραχολουθέω.... ..... 135 
WODROG vc 608% ahs ἌΡ Ὁ 
πειράζων, ὅ............80,) OF 
πείθεις----ποιῆσαι ........... 149 
πίστιρ «5 0 vse dss 0's one ene 
TANPOPOPEW.,. cea +eeeees 132 
πονηρία... . «ον 0 000 eee 


πονηροῦ, TOD «e044 «04-104 
TPGITOGLTOS. wae «..... 174 
TPGlGEVTOG ee eerevevees 174 


“ 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS, 


PAGE, 
πραιτώριον... .......... 168 
προγιγνώσχω .......... 155 
προσάββατον.,... .....- 188 
PARR eves νιν vile 388 
ΒΒ eb). ois wwe eee 188 
PaBOOdYOS τ... 175 
και PE ες ες 189 
PS 2 τον ΤΕ ροΈαες ὉΝΟ 168 
DOMME Tee Sedo pe ss 85 
σαβαώθ. ......««.ι see 209 
σαββατισμός...........«- 189 
σάββανοιλ,,ονς ἑνς 189, 101 
CORGNPOR ὡς cleans cess 184 
Σατανᾶς. .... Beatin seis ΚΝ 97 
GATORS airs. τὲ ἐὶ 189 
TURE PUG ..csevessceee. 168 


189 
OREM νὰν ἐν eo ἐς one 160 
σουδάριον... ..... eennee 169 


CURD Cis νιν 6 650.0 νος 


215 

᾿ PAGE. 
σπεχονλάτωρ...... δἰ τιν, Soe 
Oe VE Se τορι τς ἕ 175 
σονύνανος Soe cise). ose τὶ 184 
συνείδησις. ..... 27. 198, 199 
TOVGUYOSS ovo eo νιον «οὐ ςς 197 
FOCOOE oo ah as ais eee 145 
PEG as 8is piace sea 08's 170 
σσώποςε, , να νος pak TO4 
δε δ ὁ dus visi sae ὡς 170 
CW oe aesiien κω; 115-126 
QUAD sa τ τον woven ἂν 120 
φραγέλλιον -ὀω.......... 171 
POO aro a τ τὰ πω ὦ 20 
ψεῤυυβία, .occeveseeece 190 
WIMOPYOS <5 's'. swale ¢ 175 
χρίστιανον MOtHOAL...... 147 
PEG gaia A ork oc ψις δτδὶς 171 
WEVOO— serves cevece ve 197 
DOGWE Ss ον νὰ we «ces 2/n ey) 101 


216 


III.—INpEx or New TESTAMENT TExTs. 


(The citations in Sections xvi. and xvii. are not all given.) 


"PAGE. 

MATTHEW. 
tise s oeke bs x 184 
1 νυν το αν 37 
Aly Nees ee GA ὦ ate 183 
Ei] ον joie siererele in’ 53 
ἦν, τ, 3,5, O11 89 
ἂν δ ον νον ee 167 
A eee 189 
χρυ wera sec bk 166 
ry CR Saree errr 97 
Bierce ate ἐς ἐξ ον 167 
WE NER a 58, 60, 73 
SR iti ens 84, 97 
Χ eT Reapegrpeak 9 86 
35-39) cues: 107 
Ἀν ag ee 105 
= EEE RTS 86 
Wile BOs ΦΕΡῸΙΣ eee 99 
2.3 Σὰν οἷς τὰν 158 
Ke Wwe ἐς δὰ 163 
MINS 4 sca τ Ge 99 
Be wae ws Re ees 30 
ST | Ga ἐς Cae ea. ea 97; 99 
BM, wines hee 97 
BVA Teas cere ieee 122 
RVG CRS hanks πὴ 53 
{PRA aneetiaie sa 88 


PAGE. 
MatTTHew—Continued. 

XX. (2... 05 vs wee 164 

EXL. 0a) cs vise 190 

EX. ΠΣ vos See 188 

15. 400 s0> ΝΣ 98 

rE ρον ΝΣ 182 

πεῖν, ων τ ρῶν ΚΝ 35 

XXV1. 45, 46 III 

53.-60«:.< eee 166 

πανὶ, 26... ΟΝ 171 

ye 168 

AG. x60 ΡΣ 182 

O85: wi νοῶ 166 

Mark. 

Fie πε 53 

11.52... iso a ee 106 

ἵν. τᾶς, 00 «mace 99 

Υ. σὸς eee 74 

γε δ, 182 

Vi. 2. ΑΝ 37 

27... ον ey = 170 

45.0 cc ee 99 

Vil. ἀπο ΣΝ 168 

i er 187 

34. ieee 182 

ἘΧ. 471, a cae 186 


Xiis 30-33 «τορι ΕΝ 


INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS. 


PAGE. 
Marx—Continued. 

KiV. 7....Ὁ Ὁ 166 725 74 

BO) ob nw einen oes 184 

rs Pe ἐν 111 

ἘΝ iia ein diecast 74 

διὸ iain ow λοι 182 

BOs bors snes ase 165 

42...» 188 

LUKE. 

1, 1.4............6 66 130 

ον ce nc gine ete 189 

li, 14.2. 23, 49) 55 

BEA Sh iin wie sop sate 53 

πο ρος, 34, 97 

vi. ἘΝ κτλ ἐϊῷ τὸν υ 97 

MARIA es oss epee ot 99 

Be a win apse bs 113 

πον ρα pitt 94 

πο πον oso 3 gers ep* 58 

7. be Se 110 

xii. 22-29 ae 2069 

ai eee 105, 107 

Ἐπ os soon chy νος 186 

FeO ihn saps oP 187 

IQs soap be wien: 198 

BVI δι... 5 veces pe 184 

MTEC OG vise wey de spe 121 

7 ἰδ γενῶν 109 

BOu bd ev cipince sic 168 


: PAGE 
LuxeE—Continud. 
MEE RO sss sv cy νὰν 57 
BEL AG. 4 oes ape 119 
ΧΗ 45, 46....000. 111 
47... .«.....6689 119 
JOHN. 
Te ΘΟ ὁ ὁ νὸν wh nies 32 
τ θεν ESS se 124 
ΠΟ Gales selene 171 
Εν τἀν νον τλρν ἐς 121 
με νιν τοὺς en wae 186 
DN io ὐφων δὺς 121 
ee 143 
WES BT το ete 145, 157 
BE sp ala Winia'e cae 187 
ἐπι 2}, BE ων ἐὺ 106 
Ke 27 40. ὁ νον δὲ 155 
Ki. Sy δος εν νος 121 
ΜῈ δον ἦν μὴ 24 
τ ΨΥ ΨΚ eee 67 
4 Ἐπ τῶν reer ea a 167 
a PE ae 121 
RE ALS bos ews bes 166 
(ah EP eae yar εν 34 
Φ ΕΣ Σ ἐξ re oo 121 
ἊΝ. δι τ ωννον 121 
BV Ζῆν oi wad tae 121 
VE TGs ci νοὶ he SAM 97 
MAK TOS sn t's bey oP 170 
BO aso epee 121 


218 


INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS, 


Joun—Continued. | 


XX. 2 


11. 


XXlil. 2 
XXiv. 


XXVI. 
XXVii, 
XXVili. 


RoMANS. 


ili, 24-26... 0.0.00. 


Vili. 15 


PAGE. 


12 
122 


PAGE. 
RomAans—Continued. 
Xb: {Risateten 29, 33, 160 
29s.%3300 Vee 189 
5 Ee PR ey oy 155, 158 
xii. 9, -20,-31 45 ee 
1 CORINTHIANS. 
Vi 54 ah ok Cele 188 
13. τς νος νον 97 
> at τον νος ΣΥΝ 70 
See 53 
285 δὴν τον 167 
Ki. IO. s'./e'. 05 eee 45 
X1V. 44... δος ς δὲς 29 
EVE" 9.0. see 160 
36-38. vis cae 35 
“VTS 22; 189 
TS. ssc e eee 54 
y | aera ΈΥΝ 188 
2 CORINTHIANS. 
e105... ΣΥΝ 85 
20. «|. ss sie ee 185 
22s secs eet 0 183 
ἔχ τῶν τ ΤΟΥ 54 
πὶ, 28. εν 74 
ΧΗΣ 10%... τ 53 
GALATIONS. 
τον eee 160, 187 
His 14 ιν το 3 186 
ili; -16,°20 3.22 ae 45 
iv, “δος ΟΝ naa 184 


INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS. 219- 
PAGE. PAGE. 
EPHESIANS. PHILEMON [4.....: ΕΟ 
Beek is eine 150 HEBREWS. 
ἦν. Boece cece eens 137 EOE Ae ἀὸ 120 
Ἢ run ena ὑϑ χα eae eee 189 
Wie ὑνο τολοῖς 98 at the eae fi 
: ee : Be eta kwe ἐν 184 
ἔτος ee eee Ale a Naaie pela 
Vie TO... sence raped Rae pcs 106 
PHILIPPIANS. ἘΠ ee 1 eee EEE 120 
WAG is cca a as 20 : 
JAMES 
COLOSSIANS. aie 
: ὃ κεν ΤΡ ΟΡ ΤΡ eee 199 
a te μ 85 i δον 5 ee a 120 
1 THESSALONIANS. Boy wclieaeuee gach ΔῈ 
απ eh ve 76 " Se δι as asa 120 
2 THESSALONIANS. ee ak Aelita heat 75 
oy AV Jee adv eeseee 97 
i a ΘΟ 97 ESM eg αν 35 
1 TimoTuy. 
1 PETER. 
Wee Ay 3 ,.... 76 , 
τ, By 294450) kao 
2 TimoTuy. ii, 17 120 
ii. oo? eae ee ἐὸν 158° τ oon Se a 120 
ke as aera 107 MOBO cis a τὶν δ ores 141 
i et Ree 167, 171 ᾿ς ΣΌΣ ΤΣ 125 
Wek vee ox axe 85 2 PETER. 
Titus τ Ee wag ot) Re 120 
Le aA A 120 6 apap ouch he 80 


ἤν. 
δὶ. Ὁ gn Ἄν 
ἘΝ Paces . i ; 
ie 2 2 4 ¥ 2 
. Ἢ ἷ τς 
Ἢ j Ἶ 2 Ἔ δ 
᾿ | Ἂς τὰν 
ἡ ee 4 


220 INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEKTS, 
IjouHn. | REVELATIONS—Conte 
. ii. 18) 14........ 97 νι. δ᾽ ΝΟΣ 

111, 12.6.6... 6...97.098 viii. 2... «εν ννν ἢ 

Ve 18... ἐν eee eee 97 ite BIAS i: περ: } 

Ἐθ. sess ee ee 97.098. πὶ τ 01 
REVELATIONS. gin, χα, Qivesens eee 
ACESS SAT areas ve 13) I4....s008 140 


18... @ 0 6x6 9.0 \¢ 140 " ΧΧΙ. IQ. σον δὰ Came 184. 
ili. 9» TQrcccceccs 121 Xxii, LS oe 120 > 
PRE Se 


UNIVERSITY 


OF 
CAL IFORNIE 


pe pt ὦ 
Ι ὦ Sa 
: ᾿ς Ὁ nee 


ap eee ae 


THIS BOOK 18 DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 


aes 

ΑΝ INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
WILL INCREASE TO 5° CENTS ON THE FOURTH 

DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 


LD 21-50m-1,'33 


. : oo - - “ var yie Se ho a 5 een + bcinig Mote Ὁ κι Θηγξψεν το τοι χόκυν peat IRN mc RIOD al TEE οὶ 
ΡΠ π - puke ~ OE RR SRT ‘ PG LES OL i ET SE RANE Start Sa dat το Tren pay f ee AR. 3 ee ss eer 


ἐν s 


{| 
" 


| 
| 


᾿)) iI i 


| 


a 


| 


| 
i 


| 


| 


(en re nt pee te ge nt eee ee en mm 
ar cc πο τ ΠῚ — — a te A LR RR ES OE EE ET OL te OO lO! 


pace norap naa ge pronase neon npemenrenang φ «πότος 


